Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin <goatNOSPAM1@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 09:51:00 +0100
rbwinn wrote:
On May 26, 4:14 pm, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:rbwinn wrote:On May 26, 8:24�am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well done! You seem to have understood something at last.rbwinn wrote:According to you, Michelson was not moving, Morley was not moving,On May 26, 2:33 am, Martin Hogbin <goatNOSP...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:rbwinn wrote:
the interferometer was not moving, the light source was not moving,
and the basement was not moving.
So why did Einstein say that K' was
moving relative to K?He did not say that about the MMX.
Why did Lorentz say the arm was shortened?
Because he was referring to motion through the aether.
Are you accusing Einstein and Lorentz of lying?No.
MArtin Hogbin
Well, all I can tell you is what Einstein said about the Michelson-
Morley experiment. He said
x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Where did he say that?
What was all of this supposed to mean if there was only one frame of
reference?
What was the other frame then?
Now my question is, why did Lorentz think the ether would not be
moving with the basement?
Lorentz, Einstein - they are two different people; they had two different theories.
Lorentz' theory relied on the aether and explained the MMX by means of length contraction. Einstein's theory did neither. No aether and no length contraction were required by Einstein to explain the MMX.
Martin Hogbin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- From: rbwinn
- Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- Prev by Date: Re: de broglie wave velocity
- Next by Date: Re: Absence of Newtonian limit of General Relativity and dark matter issue in spf, speed of gravity issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- Next by thread: Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|