🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 25, 9:18 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> On Dec 25, 12:16 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >> There is now an update the the FAQ page "What is the experimental basis
> > >> of Special Relativity?".
>
> > >> There has been a renaissance in tests of Special Relativity (SR), in
> > >> part because considerations of quantum gravity imply that SR may well be
> > >> violated at appropriate scales (very small distance, very high energy).
>
> > > All talk, no action.
>
> > No, there has been A LOT OF ACTION. Just read the FAQ page -- there are
> > a lot of recent experiments.
>
> > > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is,
> > > it doesn't matter how smart you are.  If it doesn't agree with
> > > experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
>
> > To date, SR agrees with each and every reproducible experiment within
> > its domain of applicability.
>
> Roberts Roberts if you were honest, in your updated FAQ page:
>
> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> you would have explained how exactly special relativity "agrees with
> each and every reproducible experiment". Especially when experiments
> essentially confirm the equation c'=c+v given by the emission theory
> of light and contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate. You often
> hint at the problem but never discuss it in detail:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b836800?
> Pentcho Valev: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."
>
> Tom Roberts: 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.
>
> Pentcho Valev: THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
> EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Tom Roberts: Sure.

Roberts Roberts are there experiments that confirm your 2006 discovery
according to which, even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", special relativity "would
be unaffected":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "If it is ultimately discovered that the
photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the
invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but
both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their
domains of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com