🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.physics.relativity
Article #1150

Re: AGAINST POPPER

#1150
From: Pentcho Valev
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:25
46 lines
3449 bytes
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.
>
> > the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
> > emission theory of light, and contradicted the thesis that the speed
> > of light is independent of the speed of the light source (the future
> > light postulate). Now Einsteinians fiercely teach that the Michelson-
> > Morley experiment so unambiguously confirmed the thesis that the speed
> > of light is independent of the speed of the light source that Einstein
> > had no other choice but to advance his 1905 light postulate.
>
> Where? If "Einsteinians" make such a wrong claim, then "Einsteinians"
> are definitely wrong too...

They are - below John Norton calls them "later writers":

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."

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=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Technical Details
Message-ID: <6e5a0b38-2eda-4cbc-906a-cb08b1668b8a@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
References: <f898b233-5dc9-4ef2-acf7-97f528a4d997@c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <a1de6c1c-865f-40ab-8c4c-054427aa95e5@x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 237b8ad48,d5e296802df08e5d
X-Google-Attributes: gid237b8ad48,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique
Subject: Re: AGAINST POPPER
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <6e5a0b38-2eda-4cbc-906a-cb08b1668b8a@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <f898b233-5dc9-4ef2-acf7-97f528a4d997@c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> 
 <a1de6c1c-865f-40ab-8c4c-054427aa95e5@x38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.215.201.41
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1251987927 29260 127.0.0.1 (3 Sep 2009 14:25:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=89.215.201.41; 
 posting-account=Lz-LbgoAAABPDavKeW-eYeobwLHD_cvQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 
 5.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)