🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 23, 11:17 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A constancy in the sense of the Michelson-Morley experiment which, in
> Einstein zombie world, could easily become constancy in the sense of
> Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
>
> http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge196.html
> George Smoot, Recipient, The 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics: "When I
> taught special relativity to my physics students at Berkeley, I
> tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn path: first,
> the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important thing that ever
> happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the motion of Earth
> through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to be the medium
> carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the speed of light is
> constant."
>
> 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."
>
> Compare with:
>
> 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."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Dear Pentcho:  You are one of the most energetic promoters of your
views on science I have ever read.  Your problem: You enjoy the
process of arguing "the old things" too much to give them up.  Get a
new pair of glasses and read my various posts.  I've disproved SR and
GR!  So, arguing about earlier explanations of this or that is a waste
of your time, and a disservice to the many naive minds that might try
to follow your reasoning.  Step out of your vacuum, fellow!  --
NoEinstein --  :-)