🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message 
news:bc8ml3h7go0n9i8uhempgi3lrofphnvm54@4ax.com...
> 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

Not true .. only *some* have had excuses made for their failure added. 
Others, like Sagnac, simply refute BaTH completely