Recent content by foxeamonn1969

re : michelson-morley experiment. As long as the experimental apparatus is in contact with the ground, it becomes an attempt to detect inertial motion, which will not work regardless of whether the experimenter is using light-clocks or tennis balls. The question I had is based on whether...

A physically real observer who is moving relative to the light clock apparatus.

Michelson-Morley experiment is no different to trying to tell if you are moving by throwing a ball in different directions in an enclosed space. The original question I had was why is the motion of the observer being treated differently the motion of the light?

A postulate isn't a fact. Consider there is no top mirror. The light would still be moving relative to the clock. What point on the clock would it be moving relative to?

Pulse (and all other bodies) are moving relative to the centre of mass of the clock, which is a single point. Reverse the analysis and consider the light at rest and the clock moving. The top mirror will not move independently of the bottom mirror. So although the light will strike the top...

In every example I have seen using the light clock, the moving observer is considered to be moving relative to the entire light clock, whereas the light beam is considered to be moving from one part of the apparatus to the other. But if the light clock was picked up and thrown, the entire clock...

Like I said, relativity suggests the future already exists, so we only think we are making decisions, whereas the outcome of decisions already exists...

I am particularly interested in the theory of special relativity, which seems to suggest that the past, present and future all co-exist, so we do not have freewill, because our future already exists, even though we haven't encountered it yet. I think the logic behind this is rather dubious, but...