CLIFFORD WILL, JOHN MICHELL AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

The question is: If John Michell had known special relativity, would
he have changed his mind and said that the speed of light would NOT
"be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source"? If
John Michell had known general relativity?

Pentcho Valev

On May 4, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...urces/05344933...
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

The question is: If John Michell had known special relativity, would
he have changed his mind and said that the speed of light would NOT
"be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source"? If
John Michell had known general relativity?

Pentcho Valev

I'm sorry I don't have the answer for you, but this is a most
interesting man.

Thanks,

http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/michell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

wrote:
On May 4, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...urces/05344933...
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

The question is: If John Michell had known special relativity, would
he have changed his mind and said that the speed of light would NOT
"be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source"? If
John Michell had known general relativity?

Pentcho Valev

I'm sorry I don't have the answer for you, but this is a most
interesting man.

Thanks,

http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/michell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

The essential question is: As the light gets very far from the massive
body, where the field is zero and the observer is INERTIAL, will its
speed be reduced, as John Michell claimed? Some hypnotists, e.g. Steve
Carlip, would tell you, indirectly, the speed WILL be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...91ae4f5465?lnk

Other hypnotists, e.g. Tom Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation, will confuse the issue but essentially will tell you the
speed will NOT be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e629fdf67094a2

Carlip is right, Roberts is lying again, who cares.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
wrote:
On May 4, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...urces/05344933....
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

The question is: If John Michell had known special relativity, would
he have changed his mind and said that the speed of light would NOT
"be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source"? If
John Michell had known general relativity?

Pentcho Valev

I'm sorry I don't have the answer for you, but this is a most
interesting man.

Thanks,

http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/michell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

The essential question is: As the light gets very far from the massive
body, where the field is zero and the observer is INERTIAL, will its
speed be reduced, as John Michell claimed? Some hypnotists, e.g. Steve
Carlip, would tell you, indirectly, the speed WILL be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...91ae4f5465?lnk

Other hypnotists, e.g. Tom Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation, will confuse the issue but essentially will tell you the
speed will NOT be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e629fdf67094a2

Carlip is right, Roberts is lying again, who cares.

How many relativity hypnotists have started worshipping John Michell
and the emission theory of light?

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Avant Einstein
Par Jean EISENSTAEDT
Historien des sciences à l'Observatoire de Paris
"Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la
lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle
de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de
raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que
la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une
particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la
lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas
appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ?.....Il se passe
fort peu de choses avant John Michell, pasteur, philosophe de la
nature et fervent newtonien, qui ouvre à la lumière les portes de la
gravitation.....La méthode de Michell est basée sur la théorie
corpusculaire de la lumière qui, sous le nom de « théorie de
l'émission », avait alors beaucoup de succès......Pourtant, au plan
des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement
de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus
utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
wrote:
On May 4, 9:42 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...urces/05344933...
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

The question is: If John Michell had known special relativity, would
he have changed his mind and said that the speed of light would NOT
"be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source"? If
John Michell had known general relativity?

Pentcho Valev

I'm sorry I don't have the answer for you, but this is a most
interesting man.

Thanks,

http://www.seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/michell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell

The essential question is: As the light gets very far from the massive
body, where the field is zero and the observer is INERTIAL, will its
speed be reduced, as John Michell claimed? Some hypnotists, e.g. Steve
Carlip, would tell you, indirectly, the speed WILL be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...91ae4f5465?lnk

Other hypnotists, e.g. Tom Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our
generation, will confuse the issue but essentially will tell you the
speed will NOT be reduced:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...e629fdf67094a2

Carlip is right, Roberts is lying again, who cares.

How many relativity hypnotists have started worshipping John Michell
and the emission theory of light?

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Avant Einstein
Par Jean EISENSTAEDT
Historien des sciences à l'Observatoire de Paris
"Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la
lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle
de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de
raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que
la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une
particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la
lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas
appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ?.....Il se passe
fort peu de choses avant John Michell, pasteur, philosophe de la
nature et fervent newtonien, qui ouvre à la lumière les portes de la
gravitation.....La méthode de Michell est basée sur la théorie
corpusculaire de la lumière qui, sous le nom de « théorie de
l'émission », avait alors beaucoup de succès......Pourtant, au plan
des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement
de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus
utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther.."

Note the enormous difference between Jean Eisenstaedt and Clifford
Will. Eiseinstaedt is extremely naive - facinated by John Michell and
the emission theory of light he declares: "Il n'y a alors aucune
raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de
la vitesse de sa source...". In other words, adieu Einstein, adieu
criminal cult! Clifford Will is a different person; he also mentions
John Michell and the variable speed of light: "the speed of light
emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the
time the light was very far from the source". However then Clifford
Will fights any possible hostile speculation by raising an incredible
argument: "Michell of course did not know special relativity". This
argument proved extremely convincing and Clifford Will was elected to
National Academy of Sciences:

http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/9464.html

Pentcho Valev