🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

You keep making the same mistake.
You keep thinking that the source independence of the speed of light
(that is, c) is something that is claimed to be true in special
relativity, regardless of the state of the observer. This is simply
incorrect. It is only true for observers that are local and inertial
to the source. Once you get that through your calcified skull, you'll
feel much better.

>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com