🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 27, 4:11 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/16830151.html
> Smithsonian wisdom: "Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity
> predicted that the gravity of an extremely dense body could bend a ray
> of light so severely that it could not escape."
>
> Giants of Science Stephen Hawking and Clifford Will explain to
> Einstein zombie world why John Michell was unable to discover what
> Albert Einstein has discovered. John Michell did not know the
> Michelson-Morley experiment and special relativity:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> Stephen Hawking: "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."
>
> http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/05344933...
> Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to
> the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the
> Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular
> theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the
> speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be
> reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell
> of course did not know special relativity.)"
>
> Dwarfs of Science John Norton and Jean Eisenstaedt seem to disagree
> with Giants of Science Stephen Hawking and Clifford Will but who
> cares:
>
> 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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
> vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
> n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
> Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
> trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
> raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
> Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
> newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
> opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
> resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
>
> Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
> the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
> the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
> there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
> Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
> reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
> don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
> what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
> end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

xxein:  Have you ever thought that since previous explanations were so
wrong, that we should not hold them as a basis of future theory-making?