🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:de315710-ff26-4145-8c2e-1ade14b28958@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1:
> "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light
> from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the
> first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that
> according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the
> passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should
> be c-u."
>
> Needless to say, Feynman rejects the equation c'=c-u (it is
> incompatible with Einstein's special relativity) but:
>
> 1. According to Maxwell's theory, the equation c'=c-u is correct (u is
> the speed of the car relative to the ether).
>
> 2. According to Newton's emission theory of light, the equation c'=c-u
> is correct (u is the speed of the car relative to the emitter).
>
> 3. In the absence of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses (Lorentz-FitzGerald's
> length contraction), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the
> equation c'=c-u and refutes the alternative equation c'=c compatible
> with Einstein's special relativity:
>
> 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."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
> suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
> the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Pentcho Valev

====================

  Since in no case are you dealing with [there-now (0)] from a distance 
(here-now (0)), the [histories (-)] you are dealing with will always vary. 
(0=0) (c=c)

  Like so many others around here, including opponents, you seem utterly 
incapable of dealing -- either seeing / perceiving or traveling -- in time 
travel from past to future (past (-) to now (0) via future (+)). ((-) > (0)) 
(c=c)

  Again like so many others around here, including opponents, you seem 
utterly incapable of dealing -- either seeing / perceiving or traveling --  
in anything like a [symmetrical / asymmetrical] bi-directional light-time 
grid:
((0) < (-))
((0) > (-))
where:
(< = (+))
(> = (-))
(0=0)
(c=c)

GLB

====================