🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 6:08 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:20 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 6:40 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote in sci.physics:
>
> > > How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
> > > experiment?
>
> > > Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to measure
> > > the velocity of the earth through it.  Their interferometer floated on
> > > the suface of a tank to eliminate vibrations.  They tried during
> > > different times of the year, when the motion of the earth around the
> > > sun was going in opposite directions relative to the stars. And they
> > > tried just rotating the interferometer.  The sensitivity of the
> > > interferometer was such that they should have been able to detect
> > > motion at a small fraction of the speed of light.
>
> > > They never did find any evidence of motion through the ether.
> > > Conclusion: Either a) the luminiferous ether that fills all space and
> > > transmits light to us from the stars is fixed to a floating
> > > interferometer in a tank in the basement of Adelbert Hall at Western
> > > Reserve University, or b) there is no ether, or c) galillean
> > > relativity is wrong, or some combination of these ideas.
>
> > > Einstein proposed (independently of this experiment,which he learned
> > > about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so clever
> > > at hiding from us that we can never detect it.
>
> > > What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment?  I
> > > predict that Spaceman will say their interferometer malfunctioned.
> > > Some will say that Michelson and Morley must have been Jewish.  Other
> > > than that, I am curious.
>
> > > Uncle Ben
>
> > If you were somewhat cleverer you question would have been:
>
> > "Why on earth didn't they explain the Michelson-Morley experiment in
> > terms of Newton's emission theory of light?"
>
> >(snip)
>
> You are right, except that in fact they DID -- or at least Spaceman
> and Androcles did.  Apparently other people have taken the emission
> theory seriously in recent years, enough to have inspired a search for
> evidence from the spectra of rotating twin stars.  They didn't find
> any support for the emission theory. (See Wikipedia on "Emission
> theory of light.)
>
> Even way back, Newton dismissed it after a while, saying that it would
> cause astral light spectra to be all jumbled up.
>
> Ben

If you were somewhat cleverer you would know that the only important
question is:

Does the speed of light vary with the speed of the light source v, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v, and also with the gravitational
potential V, in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2)?

The emission theory says "yes" but this is not essential: it can be
shown that the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments rigorously
prove the validity of the two equations, without any reference to the
emission theory. The problem is that for the moment Einstein zombie
world does not give a shit about what experiments prove and what they
don't prove.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com