🚀 go-pugleaf

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! 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. I suggest that you
return to and develop the following insights of yours:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com