🚀 go-pugleaf

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
pvalev@yahoo.com