🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:d3f81bf5-8424-47f8-9a54-520026cce300@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 10:12 am, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> Typical reasoning in the era of Postscientism: 2+2=5 is correct, 2+2=4
> is correct as well.

Obviously not.

It appears you don't understand scientific method.

> In fact, in 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment
> was consistent with the thesis "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"

Seeing the v is zero, then it is consistent with it.  c' = c+0 =c is fine

> and inconsistent with the
> antithesis "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the
> light source".

It is consistent with both.

What it is NOT consistent with is the theory that the speed of light would 
vary depending on the direction of the beam

> Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized
> the reality (introduced length contraction, time dilation etc.) so as
> to make the Michelson-Morley experiment inconsistent with the thesis
> and consistent with the antithesis.

You have some distorted ideas there

> In the end, the antithesis became
> "the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
> together":

Seeing it was experimentally supported and the thesis was refuted.  Yeup.

> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Good thing the postulate isn't shattered then

> Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
> the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
> theory of gravity is false."

Good thing it isn't

> http://www.buy.com/prod/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/q/loc/106/31065101.html
> Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one
> fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's
> speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with
> respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the
> train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light
> flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-
> Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always
> moves stubbornly at the same speed.

It didn't show that, although it is consistent with it .. but it did show 
the speed was not affected by the direction of travel (relative to the fixed 
ether that was assumed to exist in theories at the time).

> This means that if I take a light
> ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to
> measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same
> apparent speed!

Yeup.  Thats correct.  Experimental evidence supports this.

> Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in
> part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was
> that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That
> something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time.
> This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives,
> space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein
> conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing that could flex and
> change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of
> the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe
> that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the
> constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of
> physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the
> notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a
> swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics.
> Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory
> of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the
> universe works."

Yeup.