🚀 go-pugleaf

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:27 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>> In our best model of light, QED, the photon is NOT a particle. Neither is it a
>> wave.
>>         There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
>>         Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare
>> There is no expectation that words and concepts from your everyday life capture
>> the essence of phenomena far removed from you everyday experience. Photons and
>> quantum phenomena are indeed far removed (you experience light, not photons or
>> their quantum implications).
> 
> Honest Roberts stop introducing red herrings!

Dishonest Valev stop ignoring the context! I was responding to marcofuics, and 
this is not at all a red herring.


> You know that the
> problem crucial for contemporary physics is: Does the speed of light
> depend on the speed of the light source, as Newton's emission theory
> of light assumes, or is it independent of the speed of the light
> source, as Einstein's special relativity assumes.

This is not a "crucial problem" at all, because it has been answered. 
Definitively. As only EXPERIMENTS can do. There are numerous measurements of the 
speed of light emitted by moving sources, and they all obtain c within their 
resolutions. Modeling the speed of light emitted by a source moving with speed v 
as c+kv, experimental measurements require k<2*10^-9, SOLIDLY refuting emission 
theories such as Newton's:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source_tests

What you erroneously call Special Relativity's "assumption" is actually a 
POSTULATE used to develop the theory; that postulate is amply confirmed by 
several experiments, as is the entire theory (see all of the sections in the 
above URL).

	Note also that Einstein's second postulate is not actually
	required to develop the theory. A suitable alternate is:
	no signal propagates with infinite speed.


> I suggest that you
> return to and develop the following insights of yours:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2

There is nothing to "develop" -- you are just repeating YOUR nonsense. That is 
not any "insight" of mine, it is merely basic logic applied to the situation 
that YOU repeatedly misrepresent.


> John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
> AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
> Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
> with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
> experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
> relativity."
> Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
> EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
> Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
> relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
> emission theories, but not relativity."

The fact that a given theory is "fully compatible" with one or two experiments 
means very little -- the theory must be compatible with ALL of the experiments, 
and emission theories are not. And that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the 
validity of special relativity (which IS consistent with all of the experiments 
within its domain).

	[Don't expect me to respond until you LEARN something, about
	 basic logic, physics, and common courtesy.]


Tom Roberts