🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Pentcho Valev:

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1189489103.189656.23370@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On 10 Sept, 17:20, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
>> > nothing remains of his castle in the air, nothing
>> > of the rest of contemporary physics,
>
>> Including Newton.

> Excluding Newton, as far as the implication of
> Newton's corpuscular theory of light according
> to which the speed of photons DOES depend on
> the speed of the light source is concerned.

Einstein did promote the discrete nature of photons (the 
photoelectric effect).  But he did not arrive at c in that 
effort.  Maxwell took care of providing c.

> But why don't you comment on the original
> problem: Did the American Journal of Physics refute
> Einstein:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000075000008000741000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
> American Journal of Physics -- August 2007 -- Volume 75,
> Issue 8, pp.741-746
> From Newton to Einstein: A forgotten relativistic
> optics of moving bodies
> Jean Eisenstaedt Observatoire de Paris,
> SYRTE/UMR8630-CNRS, 61 avenue
> de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France
> Since the time of Galileo, the relativity of motion
...
> Elsewhere the same Jean Eisenstaedt writes:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison
...
> Translation from French: "Therefore there is no
> theoretical reason why the speed of light should
> not depend on the speed of the source

... apparently he never heard of James Clerk Maxwell ...

> and the speed of the terrestrial observer as well;
> even more clearly, there is no reason, in the
> framework of the logic of Newton's Principia,

... ah, the key is he was reading Newton, and not current science 
...

> why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> concerned, differently from a material particle.
> Neither is there any reason why light should not
> be sensible to gravitation.

... if it had mass ...

> Briefly, why don't we apply the whole Newtonian
> theory to light? In fact, that is what many
> astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature
> did by the end of 18th century. The results are
> surprising....and new nowadays."

So, in answer to your question, no they did not "refute 
Einstein".

> The following references are also relevant:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann,
> Chapter 5.  (I do not have the text in English so
> I am giving it in French) Banesh Hoffmann, "La
> relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
> Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
> "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est
...
> Translation from French:
> "Moreover, if one admits that light consists of
> particles, as Einstein had suggested in his
> first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
> principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from
> a fast-moving train causes much more damage
> than one thrown from a train at rest.

... and the light *is* blue-shifted.  So the momentum *is* 
increased.

> Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a
> particle would not be independent of the state
> of motion of the emitting body!

Already incorrect.  Maxwell provided a constant speed of light, 
and so the second postulate was entirely redundant.  And clearly 
Einstein would not say exactly the opposite (speed independent) 
and then suffer this "Banesh Hoffmann" putting words to the 
contrary in Einstein's mouth.

> If we consider light as composed of particles that
> obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform
> to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not
> necessary to resort to length contraction, local time
> and Lorentz transformations in explaining the
> negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

I am out of time, and since we are done with your original 
question.  I am also done.  Nature already shows no anisotropy in 
light speed.  So all the old quotes you dig up only are 
meaningful if anisotropy exists.  You argue with Maxwell.

Move on.  Nothing to see here.

David A. Smith