🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 7, 00:29, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

Banesh Hoffmann, the apostle of Divine Albert, explains for you the
meaning of "FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE":

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com