🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 6 2007, 9:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >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."
>
> Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other
> theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental
> record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
>
> > THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> > OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
> experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
> relativity.
>
> > Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
> > c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> > which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
> > theory of light.
>
> This is just a repeat of the nonsense you continually attempt to
> promulgate. The "equivalence" you claim is wrong, and is based on
> intermixing various INCOMPLETE ideas and applying them outside their
> domains of validity....
>
> Einstein himself abandoned that 1911 equation in favor of GR, in which
> it is seen that the equation is an APPROXIMATION that applies ONLY to a
> specific and unusual physical situation. Pound and Rebka (and also Pound
> and Snider) did not use that specific physical situation. And more
> important: THEY DID NOT MEASURE SPEED AT ALL so that equation cannot be
> applied to their measurements. <shrug>
>
>      The physical situation to which that 1911 equation applies
>      involves length and time standards valid at one location
>      being applied to a measurement far away, rather than the
>      normal use of standards valid where the measurement is made.
>
> Anticipating Valev's usual childish response as he "stalks" me in this
> newsgroup (to which I will not bother to respond): Grow up.
>
> Tom Roberts

Dear Tom:  You should try to see the forest past that tree you keep
leaning on.  Einstein, et al, was wrong, as are you. -- NoEinstein --