🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252878/Special-relativity
>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA TEACHING LIES: "The fact that the speed of
>light is the same for all observers is inexplicable in ordinary terms.
>If a passenger in a train moving at 100 km per hour shoots an arrow in
>the train�s direction of motion at 200 km per hour, a trackside
>observer would measure the speed of the arrow as the sum of the two
>speeds, or 300 km per hour (see figure). In analogy, if the train
>moves at the speed of light and a passenger shines a laser in the same
>direction, then common sense indicates that a trackside observer
>should see the light moving at the sum of the two speeds, or twice the
>speed of light (6 � 108 metres per second). While such a law of
>addition of velocities is valid in classical mechanics, THE MICHELSON-
>MORLEY EXPERIMENT SHOWED THAT LIGHT DOES NOT OBEY THIS LAW."
>
>Einsteinians who are somewhat less dishonest than those who have
>written Encyclopaedia Britannica:
>
>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

It is ludicrous to claim that light leaving a galaxy 10 billion LYs away moves
at exactly c wrt little planet Earth when little planet Earth wasn't even in
existence when it was emitted.


Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

.....