🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:2a3b82b1-71f8-4612-b943-86b63036ea9a@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Catastrophe in physics: the following two texts coexist and are
treated with the same indifference by the postscientific community:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
"You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him,
but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one
key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
observer's speed or direction of motion�an idea that forms the core of
special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out
the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-
Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a
substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute
reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert
Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward
Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same
(now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary
observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property:
if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and
you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming
at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed
of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward
you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."

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."

Pentcho Valev

============================

  No traveler travels, or observes itself to travel, at the speed of light. 
Not even at 10%, or even at 1%, the speed of light. The speeding traveler's 
observed relativity to the speed of light (whatever the percentage) is 
strictly independent observer dependent. That speeding traveler will always 
observe and measure the speed of light locally in its own frame to be c. It 
will have (it will be in) a coordinate space-time universe, one somewhat --  
to fully -- offset from the observer's.

  If the traveler approaches the observer at a relative velocity anything 
like c, the observer will observe that traveler to be doing something like 
.5c, not c. The observer will [observationally] position the traveler far 
closer than the actual traveler will be to the observer, thus observing the 
traveler to be coming on at a velocity far less than the actual velocity (a 
fraction of the actual velocity). Can you understand why? Light will leave 
the traveler at speed c -- as light would be measured on site by the 
traveler, and arrive to the observer at speed c -- as light would be 
measured on site by the observer. This positions the [observed] traveler 
observably forward in space, though not fast forward in time, of the actual 
traveler's position....thus the relative velocity to be observed for the 
oncoming [virtual] traveler thus positioned by the messenger forward in 
space of the actual traveler (doing something like an actual relative 
velocity of c) at something like .5c.

  And if the traveler were doing something like an actual relative velocity 
(relative to the observer) of 2c, it would still not be observed by the 
observer to be c or greater. The observed placement of the oncoming 
[virtual] traveler would be even closer in space (though not at all closer 
in time than the local photo-time of the propagation of the light) to the 
observer for an observed velocity still below c.

  This scenario, if followed to its logical conclusion, means that all 
arrivals too (that is if there is an occurrance of an arrival) will also 
always be at a relative velocity somewhere below c....no matter what the 
actual relative velocity of travel once was. There is still the matter of 
the so-called "speeding" (actually a constantly accelerating and/or 
decelerating) traveler always being involved in physical contractions and/or 
expansions of the surrounding nearer frames of universe.

  In going away, the observed [virtual] traveler will always fall behind in 
space and timeof  the unobserved, and unobservable, real-time traveler. The 
speed of c is too slow to keep up with the real traveler stretching out in 
distance away from the observer....and away from itself as an observed 
[virtual] traveler.

  That observed [virtual] traveler, whether going away or oncoming, will 
always be observed to [spacially] exist somewhere between the unobserved, 
the unobservable, real-time traveler and the observer. Never (because of c) 
to be observed by the observer somewhere back behind the oncoming 
unobservable real-time traveler. And never (again because of c) to be 
observed by the observer forward to the front of the unobservable real-time 
traveler going away from the observer. In both cases the [apparent] 
positioning of the observed virtual traveler will always be toward the 
observer meaning an [apparently] slower relative velocity always being 
observed for the traveler than the traveler is in fact doing. Close in, this 
doesn't mean anything. The real-time traveler will be merged, or almost 
merged, with its observed virtual self. Farther out, it begins to mean 
something as the distance in the division between unobserved and observed 
will be expanded.

GLB

===============================