🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:40c28b9d-bcf0-4246-9a51-5615eec97074@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2009/06/why-spending-5bn-and-finding-nothing-is-not-a-waste-of-money.html
"Why spending 5bn and finding nothing is not a waste of money....By
way of illustration, Whyntie took the example of the failure of
Michelson and Morely to detect 'the ether' in their famous 1887
experiment. At the time noone could conceive of the idea that in the
dark voids between planets and galaxies there is, well, nothing at
all. But Michelson and Morely showed that the 'all-permeating super
custard' (in Whyntie's words) that everyone believed in was simply non-
existent. The result led to the discovery that the speed of light is a
fundamental physical constant and ultimately to Einstein's Theory of
Special Relativity. "It could be that the LHC finds nothing at all.
Would that be a waste of 5 billion? No!" Whyntie told the audience. By
this point we were all bought, not only on the LHC but on Whyntie
himself. His enthusiam, smartness and remarkable skill at conveying
the scientific method left us all in no doubt that he'll be a
brilliant advocate for science. It also left Cern detractors sounding
like miserable whinging bores."

Silly Einsteinians believe the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Clever Einsteinians know the
experiment confirmed Newton's emission theory of light. Examples of
silly Einsteinians:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) 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. 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!"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

The last Einsteinian, Divine Albert, was extremely dishonest, not just
silly. Examples of clever Einsteinians:

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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

James H. Smith "Introduction � la relativit�" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumi�re �tait un flot de particules m�caniques ob�issant
aux lois de la m�canique, il n'y aurait aucune difficult� � comprendre
les r�sultats de l'exp�rience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fus�e se d�place avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport �
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumi�re parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumi�re signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumi�re par rapport � leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumi�re
se d�placeraient � la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport �
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout � celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent � une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se d�veloppent et non pas � une
certaine vitesse par rapport � leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
................................................................................................
................................................................................................

Contrary to people who critize what you post, you are correct.

MMX did NOT prove anything. ANY child could expain
that if light was ballistic the two way result would have given the
result they got OR if one simply looked at Galileon relativity
the local distance the light travelled would obviously not
change so would have given the same result.

Einstein using, or anyone else using, MMX to justify SR
or length contraction is just plain incorrect.


Spirit of Truth