🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 3, 4:25 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 4:01 pm, harry <harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 3, 2:22 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the antithesis of
> > > Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
>
> > That can't be: his 1905 paper, although not directly mentioning it, is
> > in part based on that experiment. His first derivations even match the
> > the set-up of that experiment. As usual, you are completely wrong on
> > the main point.

...

[..]

> But John Norton is not correct about Einstein - Divine Albert also
> used the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light
> postulate of special relativity":
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152...
> The New York Times, April 19, 1921
> "Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
> the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
> contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
> Professor Einstein asked."

Thanks for that article! But I wonder if you'll ever get it right.
As he pointed out in that talk, it seemed that the light principle
(constant speed relative to a stationary system, independently of the
speed of the source) could be valid for only one system (a
"stationary" system); the light principle appeared to be incompatible
with the PoR. Contrary to expectation, MMX supported the PoR even for
light propagation. He thus asked how the PoR could be reconciled with
the light principle.

Harald