🚀 go-pugleaf

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