🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 13, 12:28 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:11 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
>
> Irrelevant. Some properties of light are explained by the emission
> theory, others by the wave theory, others are not explained at all.
> The property called "dependence of the speed of light on the speed of
> the light source" is unambigously determined by the Michelson-Morley
> and Pound-Rebka experiments and explained by the emission theory.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, there is a theory that accounts for all known effects and that
is quantum electrodynamics.   That theory is relativistic, of course.

I suppose we have exhusted this subject now.  Thanks for the exchange.

Ben