🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 6:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So I take it that you do give a shit about experimental reality.

How does the emission theory of light account for the slowing of light
when passing through glass?  If the poor little photons are slowed
down by collisions with atoms, why don't they continue to slow down
more when faced with more atoms until they come to rest, instead of
continuing to plow throujgh with a constant speed?  Why haven't we
found any photons at rest? Or should we propose a grant from the NSF
to look for them?

Ben