Recent content by mich

No there is always one you in every universe; everytime you change your frame of reference, you change your universe however subtle it may seem...even by changing directions when walking.However, with such low speed the effect would be unoticable. Let's retake the experiment, since I think...

If I'm not mistaken,Jesse, the Quantum weirdness identifies a version of you in all the different universes, one doing something a bit different than the other. The collapse to one reality might have something to do with conciousness, or even the laws of nature.So in the version of the M&M...

And that's what I thought as well; but I was given some help to see why it is so.Read carefully now... the M&M experiment is done having the observer on a moving frame. Newton believed that light was made of particles...redo the M&M experiment having this in mind and you will clearly see...

If one performed the M&M experiment with the light sensor (observer) placed on a moving frame; and if the sensor would detect a shift in the two combined light spectrums,making the event non-simultaneous,then we would have not only a difference in clock rates, and measuring rods, but a...

I totally agree that this is not what Relativity claims. I simply allowed a Quantum element within the picture. In one frame within the universe, the bomb explodes, while others, it doesn't. I am actually asking that if the M&M experiment would be performed and such outcome would exist...

But what if the experiment was done and the outcome would be the observer on the moving frame (sensor) see the local event as being non-simultaneous? What would this imply? I mearly wrote that "if" such an outcome would exist, scientists would be just as amazed as Michelson was. Andre

Jesse, when I wrote down "case closed", I had just realized how right you were, and everything was becoming clear. I was starting to understand my errors now...Case closed meaning you win, I loose. The L=ct was not part of the equation I was trying out. It just dawned on me that both...

The last thread I started consisted of the problems that I had with the implication of length contractions of a moving frame as measured by an observer on a different reference frame, although I had no problems with time dilations. With the help of all of you, I have now come to understand why a...

Ha! You got me. I munched on all the meat and 'tatos you wrote and I'd like to thank you for your patience because it clarified many things. As I was trying to visualize the experiement, it dawned on me that leaving the length contraction out of the equation for the horizontal leg would...

I agree At first, I thought you did, but I was wrong. I agree I was not adding those two fractions at all; I was identifying a length contraction for L, making it L/gamma. This over the velocities (c+v) (c-v) gave me t1. Physical center If an observer on a moving frame can...

I agree with everything you wrote granpa. Andre

The two frames I meant was how the observer calculated the velocity of light; it's either c relative to him or it's a different speed relative to the moving frame, as seen by the observer (closing speed). One cannot switch from one perception to the other when calculation is done on both legs...

While I think I understand what you did, I'm not quite certain I understand why you did what you did. Now, as granpa said, there are two ways to look at this. We can either view the problem with the light speed being c relative to us, or make the calculations accordingly with the light going...

Sorry; my mistake. :) I used this frame because it was the preferred frame that granpa was using. Andre

Well, you most probably are correct, for I'm not a scientist of any kind whatsoever...I'm mearly trying to understand something which seems confusing to me. Now, I did try to explain in mathematical terms the problem I had even using the (c-v)(c+v) terms you asked me to use. So, I'm not...