🚀 go-pugleaf

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
pvalev@yahoo.com