🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 3, 4:57 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 6:16 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > sci.physics.relativity:
> >> [MMX experiments]
> >> indicated that Maxwell's theory was wrong (along with a number
> >> of other experiments trying to measure "motion wrt the aether").
>
> > Yes the Michelson-Morley experiment did refute
> > Maxwell's theory (more precisely, its implication that the speed of
> > light is independent of the speed of the light source)
>
> No, the Michelson-Morley experiment did NOT "refute" the "implication"
> that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.
> It refuted MAXWELL'S THEORY. Experiments can only refute THEORIES, not
> "implications".

Whoever told you that, Honest Roberts? Any theory normally has many
implications (conclusions), some of them possibly correct, others
possibly false. It is so obvious that experimental results initially
contadict SINGLE CONCLUSIONS. Then the theory is either rejected or
repaired but this depends on additional theoretical analysis.

Just consider the standard textbook calculation of the Michelson-
Morley experiment: your brothers Einsteinians use constant speed of
light (independent of the speed of the light source) and obtain a
theoretical result inconsistent with the experimental result. In other
words, the experimental result contadicts (refutes) the constant speed
of light assumption. If your brothers Einsteinians could find courage
to replace "c" with the respective formulas given by Newton's emission
theory of light, they would obtain a theoretical result consistent
with the experimental result.

> Indeed, we know that SR includes this "implication" and
> yet is fully consistent with this experiment.

Special relativity can be regarded as the aether theory plus a
protective belt built by FitzGerald and Lorentz. Read Lakatos, Honest
Roberts.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com