The "failure" of Michelson Morley 1880s was spectacurely explained by the real conntraction of one of the arms of the interferometer according to the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction. If the contraction is a visual illusion and not a real contraction, how then can MM1880s be explained? All the observers of the MM1880s interferometer experiments were stationary with the interferometer. The interferometer could not be relatively contracted whether the contraction is a real contraction according to Lorentz or a visual illusion according to Einstein. Read my lips. The arm could not be observed to be contracted by observers stationary with the interferometer. And especially if the contraction was a visual illusion caused by deviations of photon travel time. Right, Pete? Right, James R?
Hi CANGAS, I don't know why you think that length contraction is "a visual illusion according to Einstein". You appear to be ignorant of the fundamentals of relativity. The explanation of the Michelson Morley experiment according to SR is simple: The speed of light is invariant. It does not depend on the motion of a reference frame with respect to the ether.
Canguas, even I understand this one and my studies only briefly touched on both SR/GR. The length contraction is quite real but will only be observed by someone outside the frame of refrence occupied by the object. And the other half is as equally simple: regardless of the frame of reference, c will never vary for any observer. That's why the experiment worked and there's nothing more to tell or question.
Yeah, what they said. And he appears to be utterly ignorant of how the experiment was actually preformed.
On our rotating Earth, I thought that light (and all electromagetic waves) traversed more terrestrial landscape (per unit of time) whilst travelling from east to west. Something about the Sagnac effect, if I recall correctly. Is the Sagnac effect properly detected by the Michelson Morley apparatus?
