0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Very eloquently stated!Butch
Okay, so you accept the definition of Length contraction we use, only contracting in the direction of motion, not perpendicularly to it? If so, I still don't get your purpose Butch. Either you are questioning 'c' as a 'speed', and then the MM experiment isn't your best choice, or you're questioning if light was a constant? In which case the interference clearly stated light to be so.Now, if you want to present a new way of interpreting how light came to to be a constant in the MMX , that's cool. But if you want to question what the experiment told us, that light is a constant, then you better look up the two way definition of lights speed too, because those experiments tell us the exact same, the added thing being that they also give us a 'speed'. As for light being slower in the rest frame? I don't get that at all. Light is a constant 'c'. It only have one speed, you want it to have different speeds depending on some mysterious fudge factor of 'densities'? Relativity is built on this concept, you want it differently, then you need to first answer the two way experiments we have of a speed, then the one way experiments of it being a constant.