🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  6e5a0b38-2eda-4cbc-906a-cb08b1668b8a@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> 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."

Sure.
But other experiments are FULLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT, YET COMPATIBLE WITH
THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Exit Emission Theory Of Light.
Exit Poncho Valev.

Dirk Vdm