🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 10, 5:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 12:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 7:36 pm, PD (Paul Draper) wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 9, 12:54 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The following text is consistent with Einstein's relativity theory but
> > > > inconsistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Newton's
> > > > emission theory of light:
>
> > > >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> > > > John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
> > > > were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
> > > > pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
> > > > mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
> > > > have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
> > > > BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
>
> > > And this is directly confirmed in experiment.
> > > However, it is consistent with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory; you
> > > got that wrong.
>
> > The problem, Clever Draper, is whether Maxwell's electromagnetic
> > theory predicts that the speed of light is unaffected/affected by the
> > movements of the observer. Consider this, Clever Draper:
>
> >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002149/01/Norton.pdf
> > John Norton: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that Maxwells
> > electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
> > important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
> > propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
> > TO THE ETHER. Its velocity of propagation is unaffected by the
> > velocity of the emitter."
>
> Well, that's what Maxwell thought, though that turned out not to be
> implied by his equations at all. Maxwell himself later dropped the
> extra baggage of the ether, coming to realize what Faraday also
> believed, that the fields had a life of their own without need for a
> substrate. Einstein also dropped the extra baggage of the ether, but
> coming to that conclusion from a different direction -- it was imposed
> by the principle of relativity.
>
> Either way, the ether is not fundamental to electrodynamics, and
> Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics survive just fine without the
> ether.
>
>
>
> > Would John Norton have been right if he had written:
>
> > John Norton's text modified: "The difficulty Einstein faced is that
> > Maxwells electrodynamics cannot be an emission theory. One of the most
> > important consequences of the theory is that light in a vacuum always
> > propagates at the same speed, c=186,000 miles per second, WITH RESPECT
> > TO BOTH THE ETHER AND THE OBSERVER. Its velocity of propagation is
> > unaffected by the velocities of BOTH THE EMITTER AND THE OBSERVER."
>
> > Again: Clever Draper, is the speed of light unaffected/affected by the
> > movements of the observer according to Maxwell's electromagnetic
> > theory?
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com

These types of mediumless fields remind me of the grin of the Cheshire
Cat.
For the rest of us: no cat, no grin.