🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:29:32 +1100, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
>news:2PT5j.51831$eY.40237@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> 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.
>
>Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with 
>emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see 
>that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find 
>its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because 
>it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.

There have been a few past experiments that have been interpreted as refuting
BaTh. All those interpretations are now known to be flawed.

All those 
>
>However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it 
>to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted 
>theories of physics and move on.  That 's what scientists do ..its only 
>fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted 
>theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention). 
>Sad.
>
>



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm