🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 26, 10:43 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
> as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
> Maxwell's theory.
>
> Lie 2: Originally (e.g. in 1887) the Michelson-Morley experiment was
> compatible with the future light postulate and incompatible with the
> antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light.
>
> Just one of the countless texts perpetuating the lies:
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jul2005/ein3-j13.shtml
> "This second premise involved a fundamental revision of Newtonian
> mechanics. How could the speed of light be the same regardless of the
> speed of the observer? Using the analogy of a car and a train, it
> amounted to saying that no matter how fast a car travelled, the
> relative speed of the train remained the same. In other words, one
> could never catch up to, let alone overtake, the train. What appears
> absurd when applied to cars and trains was exactly what Einstein
> assumed to be the case with light: it was impossible to ever catch up
> to a beam of light. This assumption was completely in line with the
> spirit of Maxwell’s equations, which determined the speed of light but
> provided no frame of reference. It also solved the riddle of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment, as the relative movement of the earth and
> the ether no longer made any difference to the speed of light."
>
> Too much lie and absurdity kills science, that is, from some time on,
> nobody gives a sh-t about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Then
> Einsteinians can safely return to the truth and even extract career
> and money from it:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
> Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
> should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
> rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
> at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
> be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
> substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
> "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
> waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
> to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
> see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
> relative to the ether would remain fixed."
>
> http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
> "Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
> framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
> electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
> speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
> meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
> observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
> paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
> should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."
>
> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com

A photon is like a train, having a locomotive positron and caboose
electron (or vice-versa).

If going towards the original source of a photon makes it's caboose
detect sooner rather than later, rather than the same as though
everything were standing still, then by rights if that photon source
is headed towards the receiving eye or detector should also cause its
caboose to arrive sooner rather than later.

This causes wave compression or expansion depending on those +/-
velocity factors.

 ~ BG