🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:12:54 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:5b0cf384-aeb7-4698-85f8-a1d15761bbf2@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> Lies:
>>
>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
>> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
>> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
>> speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
>> second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones.
>
>That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that 
>conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation.  What it 
>did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
>
>> Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car
>> that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the
>> approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with
>> light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c,
>> toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be
>> approaching at c, not 2c."
>>
>> Truth:
>>
>> In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
>> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
>> knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
>> source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
>> emission theory of light.
>
>That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that 
>conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation.  What it 
>did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
>
>> If you are approaching a car that's moving
>> 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching
>> car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. So with light. If you are
>> traveling at the speed of light, designated c where c is the speed of
>> light relative to the light source, toward a light beam moving
>> directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at 2c.
>
>Shame that that is refuted by Sagnac.  

Sagnac fully supports BaTh. It plainly refutes SR because its analysis requires
that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. 
If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.

>Things would be much simpler if the 
>universe actually behaved that way.  But wedont' get to choose the way the 
>universe works.
> 


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

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...