🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 17, 13:11, John Kennaugh <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> 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."
>
> >Similarly:
>
> >THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> >OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> >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.
>
> Even I don't see your point. Your title is EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE
> RELATIVITY. Both the experiments you quote are compatible with both
> theories and therefore refute neither.

Unless you go into detail this statement is misleading. Concerning the
Michelson-Morley experiment, the explanation is here:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

As you can see, in the absence of miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with
c'=c+v given by the emission theory and incompatible with Einstein's
second principle c'=c, that is, it REFUTES special relativity. If you
wish to make the experiment compatible with c'=c and incompatible with
c'=c+v, you should postulate miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.). First Fitzgerald and Lorentz introduced the
miracles, and only then the compatibility between the MM experiment
and c'=c became thinkable.

As for the Pound-Rebka experiment, the situation is even worse for
Einstein's theory. We have either:

(A) speed of light VARIABLE;
wavelength CONSTANT;
NO gravitational time dilation

or (B) speed of light CONSTANT;
wavelength VARIABLE;
gravitational time dilation

(A) is fatal for Einstein's theory and yet all hypnotists in Einstein
criminal cult claim that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light
is VARIABLE (rather, they used to claim so; now they claim nothing
because their heads are constantly in the sand):

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> In fact most experiments are
> compatible with both theories. One of the few people with enough
> knowledge to actually study the question stated:
>
> "...it is of interest for the general philosophy of science that Ritz's
>   theory, so different in structure from that of Maxwell, Lorentz and
>   Einstein, could come so close to describing correctly the vast quantity
>   of phenomena described today by relativistic electromagnetic theory.'"
> Fox - 1965
>
> It is not only of interest but truly remarkable that that can be said of
> a theory proposed 60 years earlier which had no work done on it in the
> interim. The VAST quantity of phenomena described today by relativistic
> electromagnetic theory - which most relativists have been brought up to
> believe can ONLY be explained by relativistic electromagnetic theory -
> can equally well be explained by the much simpler Ritz's theory.
>
> I don't see what you achieve by pointing out two such phenomena out of
> so many.
>
> Tom Robert's view that there is a vast pool of evidence disproving
> emission/ballistic theory shows a total lack of objectivity and balance.
> There are a tiny number of experiments which it would appear have not
> been explained in terms of emission/ballistic theory - but then I rather
> doubt that anyone with the necessary ability has tried. Anyone who did
> would be labelled a crackpot and totally ruin his career prospects :o)
>
> --
> John Kennaugh