🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 6, 8:22 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 1:58 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 5, 7:39 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 3:16 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 5, 2:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Michelson-Morley
> > > > > > experiment is consistent with both the hypothesis that the speed of
> > > > > > light is independent of the speed of the light source and the
> > > > > > hypothesis that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
> > > > > > light source (that is, we ignore the fact that the former consistency
> > > > > > was achieved by introducing ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, starting with
> > > > > > FitzGerald's length contraction). Even this quite liberal assumption
> > > > > > does not make Einsteiniana's teaching less fraudulent:
>
> > > > > >http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/einsteins_special_relativity
> > > > > > Paul A. Heckert: "Rather than trying to understand why the Michelson-
> > > > > > Morley experiment didn't work, Einstein effectively took the result as
> > > > > > his starting point. He made the basic assumption that the speed of
> > > > > > light is a fundamental constant in the universe and that all observers
> > > > > > in any reference frame that is not accelerating will measure the same
> > > > > > value for the speed of light. There is however historical controversy
> > > > > > as to how much Einstein was actually influenced by the Michelson-
> > > > > > Morley experiment. He might have made this assumption, even if the
> > > > > > experiment had not been performed. In either case, his assumption that
> > > > > > any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same
> > > > > > value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if
> > > > > > the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at
> > > > > > different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must
> > > > > > change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this
> > > > > > assumption."
>
> > > > > I don't know what you find fraudulent.
>
> > > > Then see how Stephen Hawking uses the Michelson-Morley experiment in
> > > > his attempt to disprove the fact that the speed of light "varies with
> > > > position" (Einstein's words) in a gravitational field:
>
> > > >http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/text/extplaydice.htm
> > > > Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
> > > > in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
> > > > that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
> > > > He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
> > > > hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
> > > > although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
> > > > forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
> > > > in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
> > > > and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
> > > > cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
> > > > back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
> > > > Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
> > > > travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
> > > > second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
> > > > light, and make it fall back."
>
> > > > You find nothing fraudulent again?
>
> > > No.
>
> >http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela...
> > Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
> > the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
> > and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
> > its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
> > failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
> > through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
> > was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
> > Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
> > traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
> > moving."
>
> > No fraud again?
>
> No, and for the very same reason I gave before. You seem to have this
> basic problem with what the light speed postulate actually means.
>
>
>
> > Is Stephen Hawking one of the "later writers" referred
> > to in the quotation below:
>
> >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."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

PD has a basic problem with trying to "reason" with his one neuron
brain!  NE