LOGIC IN THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

The following arguments are both valid:

Argument 1

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is no length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) depends on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Argument 2

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is length contraction (unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) does not depend on the speed of the light source, as predicted by the ether theory and postulated in Einstein's special relativity.

Here is how Einsteinians trap unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Pentcho Valev