🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 6, 16:37, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

Bravo Roberts Roberts. Let us repeat it:

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

> 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

You are out of Einstein criminal cult Roberts Roberts. You shamelessly
denigrate the teaching of your brothers hypnotists:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

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."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF RADIATION, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com