EINSTEINIANA'S FUNDAMENTAL LIES

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.

Lie 2: Originally (e.g. in 1887) the Michelson-Morley experiment was
compatible with the future light postulate and incompatible with the
antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Just one of the countless texts perpetuating the lies:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...ein3-j13.shtml
"This second premise involved a fundamental revision of Newtonian
mechanics. How could the speed of light be the same regardless of the
speed of the observer? Using the analogy of a car and a train, it
amounted to saying that no matter how fast a car travelled, the
relative speed of the train remained the same. In other words, one
could never catch up to, let alone overtake, the train. What appears
absurd when applied to cars and trains was exactly what Einstein
assumed to be the case with light: it was impossible to ever catch up
to a beam of light. This assumption was completely in line with the
spirit of Maxwell’s equations, which determined the speed of light but
provided no frame of reference. It also solved the riddle of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, as the relative movement of the earth and
the ether no longer made any difference to the speed of light."

Too much lie and absurdity kills science, that is, from some time on,
nobody gives a sh-t about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Then
Einsteinians can safely return to the truth and even extract career
and money from it:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.
[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

idiot

Pentcho Valev


idiot

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

On May 27, 12:21*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.

[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

idiot

Pentcho Valev


idiot

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf *
*No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
*No Lorentz violation

idiot

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Whom shall we believe?

A. Pentcho Valev,
arguing from experience with rocks thrown from trains

or

B. Mother Nature,
under interrogation by esperimental physicists.

See Uncle Al's links (above post) and
Tom Roberts long list of experimental results:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:21 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.

[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

idiot

Pentcho Valev


idiot

Physics Today 57(7) 40
(2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

idiot

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most
mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Whom shall we believe?

A. Pentcho Valev,
arguing from experience with rocks thrown from trains

or

B. Mother Nature,
under interrogation by esperimental physicists.

or

C. Con artists making money from extra-sensory-perception experiments, aka
ESPeriments.


or

D. Bonehead, a senile old fool and American Redneck of Science with
delusions of
having once been indoctrinated.

On May 27, 7:57*pm, Uncle Ben wrote:
On May 27, 12:21*pm, Uncle Al wrote:



Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.
[..]

Whom shall we believe?

A. Pentcho Valev,
arguing from experience with rocks thrown from trains

Actually Pentcho is right in a way: he lied about the light postulate,
so what he wrote *is* a lie (or a "myth", as one paper puts it). ;-)

Cheers,
Harald

or

B. Mother Nature,
under interrogation by esperimental physicists.

See Uncle Al's links (above post) and
Tom Roberts long list of experimental results:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

On May 27, 11:34*am, harald wrote:
On May 27, 7:57*pm, Uncle Ben wrote: On May 27, 12:21*pm, Uncle Al wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.

[..]

Whom shall we believe?

A. Pentcho Valev,
arguing from experience with rocks thrown from trains

Actually Pentcho is right in a way: he lied about the light postulate,
so what he wrote *is* a lie (or a "myth", as one paper puts it). ;-)

Cheers,
Harald



or

B. Mother Nature,
under interrogation by esperimental physicists.

See Uncle Al's links (above post) and
Tom Roberts long list of experimental results:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...eriments.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Begin to move and relative motion is always in the opposite direction
around you. Also it slow down in the distance. Relativity is just the
appearence of motion. It is always in the opposite direction and slows
down in the distance.

MItch Raemsch

On May 26, 10:43*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Lie 1: Einstein's 1905 light postulate establishing the speed of light
as independent of the speed of the observer was consistent with
Maxwell's theory.

Lie 2: Originally (e.g. in 1887) the Michelson-Morley experiment was
compatible with the future light postulate and incompatible with the
antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Just one of the countless texts perpetuating the lies:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...ein3-j13.shtml
"This second premise involved a fundamental revision of Newtonian
mechanics. How could the speed of light be the same regardless of the
speed of the observer? Using the analogy of a car and a train, it
amounted to saying that no matter how fast a car travelled, the
relative speed of the train remained the same. In other words, one
could never catch up to, let alone overtake, the train. What appears
absurd when applied to cars and trains was exactly what Einstein
assumed to be the case with light: it was impossible to ever catch up
to a beam of light. This assumption was completely in line with the
spirit of Maxwell’s equations, which determined the speed of light but
provided no frame of reference. It also solved the riddle of the
Michelson-Morley experiment, as the relative movement of the earth and
the ether no longer made any difference to the speed of light."

Too much lie and absurdity kills science, that is, from some time on,
nobody gives a sh-t about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Then
Einsteinians can safely return to the truth and even extract career
and money from it:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev


A photon is like a train, having a locomotive positron and caboose
electron (or vice-versa).

If going towards the original source of a photon makes it's caboose
detect sooner rather than later, rather than the same as though
everything were standing still, then by rights if that photon source
is headed towards the receiving eye or detector should also cause its
caboose to arrive sooner rather than later.

This causes wave compression or expansion depending on those +/-
velocity factors.

~ BG

Einsteiniana's textbooks teach that cosmic-ray muons moving with a
speed close to c live much longer than muons "at rest", and that this
gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Then textbooks
explain how the lifetime of moving muons is measured but NEVER mention
the experimental procedure allowing Einsteinians to assess the
lifetime of muons "at rest". How do Einsteinians measure the lifetime
of muons "at rest"? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so
that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero,
their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians extremely
happy. Why? Simply because the scientific rationality is so devastated
that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can
safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' and infer that non-crashing muons live
longer than crashing muons in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's
Divine Theory:

http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html
"The purpose of this experiment is to measure life time of muons
decaying at rest. Muons, produced in the atmoshere bombarded by high
energy cosmic radiation, are passing through the system of two
detectors located one above the other one. A coincidence of signals
from these two detectors (signals occuring in both detectors within
100ns) marks a particle entering the muon telescope from above and
serves as a filter rejecting many noninteresting signals from
background radiation. Some particles, with appropriate energies, will
end their flight in the lower detector (proper amount of lead between
both detectors ensures that many of them will be muons). If a stopped
particle is muon, it will decay after some time producing electron.
The time interval between signals from the muon entering the lower
detector and the electron emerging after its decay is converted by a
time-to-amplitude converter into amplitude of signal fed to the CAMAC
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) controlled by the computer. The
spectrum of time intervals is displayed in the figure below. The
expected distribution should be exponential with the exponential time
constant being the average life time of muon. The full range of the
spectrum (about channel 2000) corresponds to the time interval of
about 25 microsecond. There are not many muons with such energies that
they will end their path exactly in the lower detector (usually they
will pass both detectors and will be stopped in somewhere in the
ground), so counting rate is rather low. To collect a reasonable
number of events, the experiment has to be run a number of days."

Any experimental verification of Divine Albert's Divine Theory amounts
to one of the following activities (or to some combination of them):

1. Sheer fraud.

2. Taking advantage of the fact that the theory is inconsistent. For
instance, on the one hand, the Pound-Rebka experiment is inconsistent
with both Einstein's 1905 light postulate and Einstein's 1915 variable-
speed-of-light equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2). On the other, this experiment
confirms Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's
emission theory of light.

3. Advancing ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses (e.g. length contraction) so
that a straightforward refutation (e.g. achievable through the
Michelson-Morley experiment) can be converted into a glorious
confirmation.

More examples of sheer fraud:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck ["sheer luck"
is a euphemism for "sheer fraud"], or a case of knowing the result
they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams
measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by
a factor of four."

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique "
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un
décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données
fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année
suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère
aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans
une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant
était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable
valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus
petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait
Eddington."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non
vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves,
issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas.
Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant
à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées
d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)

Pentcho Valev

On May 28, 5:48*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana's textbooks teach that cosmic-ray muons moving with a
speed close to c live much longer than muons "at rest", and that this
gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Then textbooks
explain how the lifetime of moving muons is measured but NEVER mention
the experimental procedure allowing Einsteinians to assess the
lifetime of muons "at rest". How do Einsteinians measure the lifetime
of muons "at rest"?

Don't be ridiculous. Muons have been produced at slow enough speeds to
capture them and replace electrons with them in atoms.

I can't help it if you are both singularly unversed in the vast wealth
of experimental information available to you (and so you insist that
it JUST ISN'T THERE!), and completely incapable of digging any of it
up.

Being able to look things up is a fundamental and indispensable skill
for anyone wanting to do science. If you are crippled at this skill,
do not expect people to compensate for your disability.

When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so
that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero,

But this is not what happens in a typical cosmic ray telescope,
despite the one case you have looked up. Good grief.

Grow up.

their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians extremely
happy. Why? Simply because the scientific rationality is so devastated
that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can
safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' and infer that non-crashing muons live
longer than crashing muons in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's
Divine Theory:

Some Einsteinians: The Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously
confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory by "showing that the speed of
light is not dependant on the motion of the observer":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...y-1969900.html
"The greatest advances in physics have come when theory has moved in
near-lockstep with experiment. Sometimes the theory has come first and
sometimes it's the other way around. It was an experiment in 1887 by
Albert Michelson and Edward Morley – showing that the speed of light
is not dependant on the motion of the observer – that influenced
Einstein's 1905 formulation of the special theory of relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Other Einsteinians: The Michelson-Morley experment confirmed Newton's
emission theory of light by showing that the speed of light IS
dependent on the motion of the observer:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

A third group of Einsteinians would tell you that the Michelson-Morley
experiment confirmed both Divine Albert's Divine Theory and Newton's
emission theory of light but other experiments confirmed only Divine
Albert's Divine Theory while Newton's emission theory of light sadly
remained unconfirmed. The scientific community sees nothing
schizophrenic in all this. Up untill recently it was still singing
"Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" but at present the scientific community does not give a sh-
t about the Michelson-Morley experiment, other experiments, Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev