Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

  • Thread starter Thread starter paulanevill@fsmail.n
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Michelson Relativity
paulanevill@fsmail.n
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then I'm not man enough!;)
 
Paul

You can e-mail me your solution on <kevin.harkess@btopenworld.com>.
I too have a solution, see section 7.7 in http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_7/wisp_ch_7.html
But much more is needed to disprove Einstein's SR than just solving the MM mystery.
Einstein developed his SR to resolve the fact that Newtonian laws could not solve the Lorentz force law. He solved this and the MM experiment seemed to support his views.
But the Lorentz force law too can be solved using an ether concept and so the question is - Is a special theory of relativity necessary. I think not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here we go!
 
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk.
Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE

You should have posted this to Special @ General Relativity forum -;)
Do you know that "the patent clerk" (Einstein) didn't know of MM experiment when he published his paper(*) in 1905.?
SR is naturally established when one recognizes that laws of classical Electromagnetics (ie. Maxwell eqs.) must be equally valid in every inertial reference frame in inform motion.For that matter,ol' Galilei relativity principle was just expanded to EM phenomena in isotropic space.Accordingly,need for ether to explain phenomena became unnecessary,and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.
Poethicaly one may say that there is a extremely high level of Democracy in Nature at work and this is in a very core of SR.
One more beautiful side of SR is it units two seemingly distinct things (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian dynamics).Greatest theories in history of science are the theories that unite.
From Faraday times on.SR expanded to accelerated systems,recognized equality of gravitational and inertial mass,leaded to the theory of Gravity as we know it today.Not bad for a patent office clerk..
______
*=Larmour and Lorentz had some (mathematical) results the same as Einstein prior to 1905.,but they were derived on different basis than it was Einstein'S theory.There is more to tell:Einstein was 16 year old high school student (in 1895) when he envisioned fact that speed of light can't be fixed to any specific reference frame.At the time he was barely heard of Maxwell's EM.
 
Ways you can tell someone hasn't "disproved" relativity:

#1) They make disparaging remarks about Einstein being a "patent clerk"
 
Originally posted by EL
Then I'm not man enough!;)
Me neither.

paulanevill, just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote. Pardon me for my skepticism though, as I use my GPS capable cell phone...
 
Originally posted by wisp
Is a special theory of relativity necessary. I think not.

Funny, the question Einstein was asking was, "Is an aether necessary? I think not."

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

I find it amazing that critics of SR (I'm not singling you out, wisp) always focus on the MM experiment, as if a "correct" reinterpretation of that would cause the whole house to come down. The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?
 
Oh boy.

One more engineer thinking he has the answer to the "nonsense" of SR. One more for the count.
 
  • #10
I don't have much to say other than:

Okay.

cookiemonster
 
  • #11
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk.
Einstein held a Phd in physics, he merely worked as a patent clerk as he was having difficultly getting a university or research position, (because he had a few personality conflicts with the people who controlled these openings)


I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

Which means absolutely nothing when it comes to Relativity. If I want medical advice, I go to an MD, not to an auto mechanic, no matter how many years experience he's had, or how many difficult auto problems he's repaired.


If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE

The real question is whether I have the time to waste in order to pour over the work of yet another engineer who's deluded himself into thinking that he's been able to find the flaw in Relativity that has somehow eluded generations of Physicists, anyone of which would have sold his soul to make a name for himself by finding such a flaw. Especially considering the fact that I'll most likely just find that said engineer has completely misinterpreted Relativity in the first place.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE
Did your efforts produce testable predictions? Do any of those predictions differ, to any significant extent, from the predictions for SR and GR? If so, please present, succinctly:
a) your prediction
b) the corresponding SR/GR prediction
c) a list of experiments, with their results, conducted to date, in the domain of your prediction.

For your reference, here is a list of experimental tests of SR, and http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy.

One more engineer thinking he has the answer to the "nonsense" of SR. One more for the count.
The real question is whether I have the time to waste in order to pour over the work of yet another engineer who's deluded himself
Easy on the engineers, guys: most of us know that all the tools and technology and math we use were developed by scientists. Most of us know that science and engineering are complimentary fields.

Yeah, this particular crackpot happens to be an engineer, but there are just as many who are failed scientists thinking they were snubbed due to the 'dogma' or some conspiracy of modern science.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise. But then I don't wish to harp on about this as I know how upsetting it is for you people. You know what they say though - An engineer will take something complicated and make it look simple, whereas a scientist will take something simple and make it look complicated.
What about the ability of the 45 degree mirror to reduce the horizontal path length due to a movement in the vertical path, and vice versa. What about the true speed of the Earth and solar system due to a sideways velocity through space as a result of being part of a circulating galaxy.

Cogitate for a while.

Paul
 
  • #15
and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.

How can this be pointless? If all the effects predicted by relativity can be explained clearly with regards to an absolute frame, surely that is progress.

I'm not bothered whether ether or SR theories are correct. But the ether still has a lot of credibility and shouldn't be dismissed just because SR is a good theory.

I'm open-minded enough to look at both theories with equal weight, but I'm more convinced that the ether route is the way to go.
 
  • #16
So what're the physical characteristics of this mysterious ether?

Last I heard it had some pretty remarkable things that it had to have going for it, and it was more of a stretch for me to imagine that such a substance could exist than space could bend a little bit.

Then again, I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been answered. If so, I apologize.

cookiemonster
 
  • #17
I would like to see Paula address Nereid's post.
 
  • #18
  • #19


Originally posted by TeV
You should have posted this to Special @ General Relativity forum -;)
Do you know that "the patent clerk" (Einstein) didn't know of MM experiment when he published his paper(*) in 1905.?
SR is naturally established when one recognizes that laws of classical Electromagnetics (ie. Maxwell eqs.) must be equally valid in every inertial reference frame in inform motion.For that matter,ol' Galilei relativity principle was just expanded to EM phenomena in isotropic space.Accordingly,need for ether to explain phenomena became unnecessary,and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.
Poethicaly one may say that there is a extremely high level of Democracy in Nature at work and this is in a very core of SR.
One more beautiful side of SR is it units two seemingly distinct things (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian dynamics).Greatest theories in history of science are the theories that unite.
From Faraday times on.SR expanded to accelerated systems,recognized equality of gravitational and inertial mass,leaded to the theory of Gravity as we know it today.Not bad for a patent office clerk..
______
*=Larmour and Lorentz had some (mathematical) results the same as Einstein prior to 1905.,but they were derived on different basis than it was Einstein'S theory.There is more to tell:Einstein was 16 year old high school student (in 1895) when he envisioned fact that speed of light can't be fixed to any specific reference frame.At the time he was barely heard of Maxwell's EM.

Thank you for the history lesson, but you ought to get your facts straighter. The whole point why SR is no good is that it relies upon a frame of reference. Maxwell equations (which I understand perfectly, having worked as an RF engineer) merely shows the osillatory nature of EM. What people don't realize thought is (on sine waves) is that they may be drawn with height on the page, but they only represent strength, ie zero space taken up.

Now, perhaps you have something useful to contribute, rather than poorly reciting a mixture of old lectures. With Absolute Motion, one needs no reference, the equations can be viewed from anywhere or any angle. You really need to put yourself out more. Chew on this for a while. Perhaps then you may decide to read my complete solution by emailing me your address: paulanevill@fsmail.net

The 45 degree mirror of the MMX, when moving in the vertical direction (or component of), reduces the horizontal path length of the light beam (laser parallel of not). And vice versa.
The solar system (being part of a galaxy) circulates in space, thus the spped of the MMX (and earth) is not the obital speed of 30,000 m/s, but varies sinusionally during the year. On the day of the 1887 experiment, the true speed of the MMX was +/- 5500 m/s. The +/- is not particularly relevant as the MMX apparatus is symmatrical about the 180 degree rotation. Plug this lot in and you get the correct mathematical result

Paul
 
  • #20
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Put yourself out and email me: paulanevill@fsmail.net
Nereid's post is good. I would like to see your response to Nereid's post.
 
  • #21


Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
On the day of the 1887 experiment, the true speed of the MMX was +/- 5500 m/s.

I think the Michaelson-Morley experiment was performed more than once in the past 100 years.
 
  • #22


Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
What people don't realize thought is (on sine waves) is that they may be drawn with height on the page, but they only represent strength

Is this the level you think we are on?
 
  • #24


Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n

Now, perhaps you have something useful to contribute, rather than poorly reciting a mixture of old lectures. With Absolute Motion, one needs no reference, the equations can be viewed from anywhere or any angle. You really need to put yourself out more.
Huh,with absolute motion you need a reference frame too.And that one would be Absolute reference frame (and there is no such).
Otherewise ,without any reference frame,there would be no detectable motion at all,including absolute one.You must observe motion with respect to something,mustn't you?
 
  • #25


Originally posted by TeV
Huh,with absolute motion you need a reference frame too.And that one would be Absolute reference frame (and there is no such).
Otherewise ,without any reference frame,there would be no detectable motion at all,including absolute one.You must observe motion with respect to something,mustn't you?

Look, the point is that you only need one reference point and it can be anywhere, the outcome will always be accounted for. You appear to be a novice, why don't you use a piece of paper next time you have a thought, to work it out, instead of merely throwing the idea at someone else in search for an answer. If you could have overcome you fear of actually getting the right answers, then maybe you would have delighted in receiving a copy of the solution by email. Next person please.
 
  • #26


Originally posted by EL
Is this the level you think we are on?

Apply it to the photo electric effect. Why do you add adjacent electric fields together. They only sum when integrated by a surface. The reality is that they travel in quanta wave bundles.

All of you, except one so far, on this site, like arguing but are scared of getting results due to a fear of then having nothing left on their mind. Engineers normally put employees like you in the corner to sit on their own, until they have matured into someone who actually stops talking big and starts producing solutions.
Dont' forget, my email is paulanevill@fsmail.net, do call for the article.
 
  • #27


Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Apply it to the photo electric effect. Why do you add adjacent electric fields together. They only sum when integrated by a surface. The reality is that they travel in quanta wave bundles.

Is this an answer to my question or? I don't get your point...
 
  • #28


Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Look, the point is that you only need one reference point and it can be anywhere, the outcome will always be accounted for.
And,since the reference point can be anywhere there's no point of introducing absolute (prefered) reference frame.It's the ARBITRARY choice.By this part of your sentence,looks like you actually start talking in terms of relativity (althougt I'm not sure how much of it you understand it,after all you have said).In what way *your* theory disprove SR PREDICTIONS.Give one example.Physical test or formula that predicts different outcome.If All the results of your model predicts the same outcome as SR then there's no conflict.It's than matter of phylosophy,not physics.

regards
 
  • #29


Originally posted by TeV
And,since the reference point can be anywhere there's no point of introducing absolute (prefered) reference frame.It's the ARBITRARY choice.By this part of your sentence,looks like you actually start talking in terms of relativity (althougt I'm not sure how much of it you understand it,after all you have said).In what way *your* theory disprove SR PREDICTIONS.Give one example.Physical test or formula that predicts different outcome.If All the results of your model predicts the same outcome as SR then there's no conflict.It's than matter of phylosophy,not physics.

regards

Read the paper. My file is too large to leave here. Leave you email address and I'll send it to you. You can't get somewhere without applying yourself. Short sentences here are not prodcutive enough.

Paul
 
  • #30
Originally posted by russ_watters
Me neither.

paulanevill, just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote. Pardon me for my skepticism though, as I use my GPS capable cell phone...

GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Tom
Funny, the question Einstein was asking was, "Is an aether necessary? I think not."

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

I find it amazing that critics of SR (I'm not singling you out, wisp) always focus on the MM experiment, as if a "correct" reinterpretation of that would cause the whole house to come down. The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?

It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. Not the question of an aether or not.

A correct interpretation will cause the whole house to come down, and it has. And of course, Einstein admitted later in life that he had read the MMX prior to his theory, not that chronological order makes a whole lot of difference when an error is involved. The whole thing is explained, but unsually (there can't be any engineers on this site) only one person is brave enough to leave me their email address, in order that they can receive a copy of my solution. I may as well be trying to make out that black is white, but then what you must take into account is, it is not often physics has to change, so it is understandable that there is this resistance.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
So, do we get a discussion of ideas, or do we get more of this emotional attack on reason and science? In other words, instead of making claims without support, support your claims.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them.
Which company does he work for? Is he a PF member? Can we contact him to get his opinion directly?
 
  • #34
paulanevill@fsmail.n wrote: It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity.
If MMx were the only experiment that tested SR, this might be worth looking into.

However, there have been plenty more - are 'the mathematical model(s)' of *ALL* of those other experiments wrong too?

Further, since SR is just a special case within GR, and since there've been plenty of experiments - which have nothing to do with MMx - that have validated GR, you should (IMHO) take the time to find out why they gave results consistent with GR.

Earlier, I posted:
Did your efforts produce testable predictions? Do any of those predictions differ, to any significant extent, from the predictions for SR and GR? If so, please present, succinctly:
a) your prediction
b) the corresponding SR/GR prediction
c) a list of experiments, with their results, conducted to date, in the domain of your prediction.

For your reference, here is a list of experimental tests of SR, and a similar one for GR[/color]

I haven't seen any reply to my questions (despite several times having the questions repeated).
 
  • #35
GPS data is fudged for the civilian market. The military versions are accurate to within about a meter, and I should know, I was a military surveyor. The signal is intentionally degraded to prevent a GPS being used for enemy missile targeting.
 
  • #36
Tom: The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Paul: It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. Not the question of an aether or not.

A correct interpretation will cause the whole house to come down, and it has. And of course, Einstein admitted later in life that he had read the MMX prior to his theory, not that chronological order makes a whole lot of difference when an error is involved.

Did you notice the part of my post that I have quoted above?

Do you know what QED is?

The whole thing is explained, but unsually (there can't be any engineers on this site) only one person is brave enough to leave me their email address, in order that they can receive a copy of my solution.

edit:
On second thought, you can just hang on to that file.

Thanks Hurkyl! :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?
Something about computer viruses, I think...suggesting that whoever thsi person is, they want to infect your system with a virus. That is why he or she has refused to post a single idea, and insists on sending you a huge attachment to download.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky!
 
  • #41
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky!
Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?
 
  • #42
I've downloaded Paul's 180K word file and it's passed my virus checker. He is expressing his views on the MM experiment.
I haven't read it yet as I've had a busy weekend.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them.
Is that the technical term for it? Where's the roll-eyes smiley when you need it? I guess this will have to do:
GPS data is fudged for the civilian market. The military versions are accurate to within about a meter, and I should know, I was a military surveyor. The signal is intentionally degraded to prevent a GPS being used for enemy missile targeting.
Actually, selective availability (the little knob in an office in the Pentagon that a general could turn on a whim to degrade accuracy to as much as 100m) was done away with under the Clinton administration. And with things like WAAS and DGPS, civilians can get 3m accuracy. Surveyors gps uses a different process which time-averages signals to get a much higher precision.

The ship I was on had a crappy old military GPS that only got 10m accuracy so the Captain got me some money to get us a commercial one with waas and dgps and a laptop for computerized navigation. Ironic.

Now, the military does have better - an additional encryped signal for even higher accuracy (1m), but the old not knowing at anyone time if you were getting 10m or 100m accuracy is gone.
 
  • #44
The simplicity of it all is to know what moves with respect to what that don't move.

The ether concept is the immovable where other things move.

But if there is only the ether and you. How do you know that you move? Maybe it's the ether that moves?

Anything that moves is a function of time. If there is no time, nothing moves. Everything exists forever.
 
  • #45
Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by wisp
Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.

The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre. Computer simulation has been carried out, producing the associated graph in the appendix. Regardless of how many experiments and readings have been carried out, the maths have changed, not the experimental results. These maths will fit all the experiments.
Remember, that beam is not connected to the apparatus, it is on a separate level if you like.
 
  • #47
The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre.

Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?
 
  • #48
Originally posted by wisp
Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light beam from the source is straight, not diagonal. Move the apparatus, not the beam. It's true that the two (straight) beams strike the final lens side by side, but the lens integrates them.

The reason for the beam striking the mirror off centre is because of the slew effect of the moving mirror. I.e. the mirror moves upwwards and the part of the mirror which is struck is lower than the centre. The same would be true using the laser (parallel beam) experiment, which of course is the ideal experiment. Remember what we are trying to establish. Whether or not (even with ideal stright laser beams) that orthogonal path times are the same or not.

If you move the light beam (following the mirror upwards) then you are moving the coordinates of space as well.

Paul
 
Last edited:
  • #49
wisp said:
Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light the viewer looks at, is the light that he is lined up with. Please find one page file attached.

Paul
 

Attachments

  • #50
Paul

I read this and let you know my thoughts.

Thanks
 

Similar threads

How does fringe shift relate to velocity in the Michelson-morley experiment?
Replies
6
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top