View Single Post
  #3  
Old January 12th 16, 04:39 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Absurd Implicit Assumptions in Einstein's Relativity

Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") fraudulently teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate but John Stachel and John Norton prefer to tell the truth:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

So it seems that the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with both the assumption that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and the assumption that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source (c'=c). This sounds at least strange and obviously needs further explanations but Einsteinians would never give them (and the gullible world couldn't care less about this double-edgedness of the otherwise unambiguous experiment).

Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment is not double-edged but this becomes clear when implicit assumptions are made explicit. The experiment is compatible with c'=c+v if there is no relativistic length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers) and compatible with c'=c if length contraction is real (unlimitedly long objects CAN be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers):

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...arage_irf1.png

There is nothing more absurd than the relativistic length contraction - see what happens at 7:12 and 9:53 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrqj88zQZJg
"Einstein's Relativistic Train in a Tunnel Paradox: Special Relativity"

Pentcho Valev