🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote in message 
news:igm8t41jicm6art1mmi5u4c29aanht3djc@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
Read the first line of Michelson's paper and then comment.
   http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf