🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 17, 4:14 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure there was no sensible emission theory before the
> MMX, there were only vague notions. Calling those vague notions
> "emission theory" is a misnomer, as proponents of what is today known as
> "emission theory", such as Ritz (and Wilson :-)), also came much later
> than the MMX.

Don't lie Honest Roberts don't lie:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF
LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il ny a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
ny a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement quant à sa
trajectoire quune particule matérielle. Il ny a pas non plus de raison
pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref,
pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ?
Cest en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes
de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les résultats sont
étonnants... et aujourdhui nouveaux. Il se passe fort peu de choses
avant John Michell, pasteur, philosophe de la nature et fervent
newtonien, qui ouvre à la lumière les portes de la gravitation. En
1784, il publie un article aussi remarquable que peu remarqué sur le
sujet. Un corpuscule lumineux est soumis à la force gravitationnelle
de létoile qui la émis : il voit donc sa vitesse peu à peu diminuée.
Appliquant les Principia, Michell fait le calcul et savise que si
l'étoile est très très ! massive alors le corpuscule lumineux est
tellement freiné que sa vitesse est bientôt nulle et, comme une fusée,
comme une pierre lancée du sol vers le ciel, il retombe vers l'étoile
qui la émis. Toutes les particules lumineuses retombent donc sur
létoile qui ne sera plus visible de loin. À ces étoiles étranges,
cousines de nos trous noirs, Laplace donnera, une douzaine dannée plus
tard, le nom de « corps obscurs »....Pourtant, au plan des structures
physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin
du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante et plus utile
pédagogiquement que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

> Maxwell's theory is what Michelson and Morley were testing.
> They refuted it.

Because Maxwell's theory implicitly involved the false light postulate
introduced in 1905 by Einstein, Honest Roberts. That is, Michelson and
Morley in fact refuted Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. On the
other hand, Newton's emission theory of light implicitly involved the
antithesis of the light postulate, the true equation c'=c+v, and
accordingly Michelson and Morley CONFIRMED this theory, although they
did not consider it (were preoccupied with the ether).

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com