🚀 go-pugleaf

On 13 nov, 08:13, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://ias.umn.edu/pdf/TimeandRelativity-Pooley.pdf
> p. 11: "Problem for Lorentz's theory: no sign of ether drift (= motion
> of ether with respect to earth). Many failed attempts to detect ether
> drift, one of the most famous ones by Americans Albert A. Michelson
> (1852-1931) and Edward W. Morley (1838-1923).
> Explanation: compensating effect: length of interferometer arm changes
> as it rotates: parallel to ether drift it is shorter than
> perpendicular to the ether drift
> Contraction (deformation) hypothesis: an object moving with a velocity
> v through the ether contracts by a factor (1-v^2 c^2)^(1/2) in the
> direction of motion."
>
> Another explanation that essentially could have been advanced by
> FitzGerald, Lorentz etc. if they had been less prejudiced in favour of
> the ether theory:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> Which explanation would have been more correct?
>
> Pentcho Valev

"Which explanation would have been more correct?"
une française explication des fois,
Dis nous CLAIREMENT, si qui pourrait justifier le maintien
de l'éther ...

Alain