Re: Michelson-Morley
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:54:08 GMT
"ca314159" <ca314159@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:460E7D1C.E022D95B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does a classical analysis of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
suffice to explain its outcome?
Yes.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
From what I can tell the experiment set out to measure
the absolute velocity v, of the Earth relative to the aether,
but in order to do so, the classical analysis requires
knowing what the speed of light is relative to the aether.
The classical analysis requires knowing what the speed
of corpuscles of light are relative to the source.
Oh, wait, you mean the neo-classical. Yes, that stupidity
came up with the ridiculous Maxwellian idea that light was a wave,
not a beam as Newton knew it to be. Today we call his corpuscles
"photons".
But knowing what the speed of light is relative to the aether
is not possible (if it were then v would be known),
There is no aether. <shrug>
There never was any aether. <shrug>
MMX does nothing useful. <shrug>
Doppler does:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
so the speed of light that Michelson and Morely relied onUgh... how primitive. Two dimensional and no animation.
was that which they measured by assuming the Earth was at rest
which would mean v must equal zero and hence the null result.
http://users.bestweb.net/~ca314159/mm.htm
Start here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm
.
- References:
- Michelson-Morley
- From: ca314159
- Michelson-Morley
- Prev by Date: Re: question about FTL equation
- Next by Date: Re: Michelson-Morley
- Previous by thread: Re: Michelson-Morley
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
