Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 2:34*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Dr. Henri Wilson HW@.... wrote in message
*

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.

When anyone measures the pitch of an approaching train's whistle,
he finds a value different from what he finds when the trains is
standing still. In Wilson world something is wrong with the experiment.
When anyone measures the kinetic energy of a moving body, we
he finds a positive value. When he measures the kinetic energy of
the same body at rest, he finds zero. In Wilson world something
is wrong with the experiment.



In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".

We have never been able to explain to Henry (or many others)
that special relativity is a theory that, in the context of what he is
alluding to here, merely describes What We Measure On Moving
Objects And How Exactly These Measurements Quantitatively
Differ From What We Measure When These Objects Are At Rest.

Still you never forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
quickly", do you Clever Moortel:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Sep 9, 2:34 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Dr. Henri Wilson HW@.... wrote in message


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.

When anyone measures the pitch of an approaching train's whistle,
he finds a value different from what he finds when the trains is
standing still. In Wilson world something is wrong with the experiment.
When anyone measures the kinetic energy of a moving body, we
he finds a positive value. When he measures the kinetic energy of
the same body at rest, he finds zero. In Wilson world something
is wrong with the experiment.



In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".

We have never been able to explain to Henry (or many others)
that special relativity is a theory that, in the context of what he is
alluding to here, merely describes What We Measure On Moving
Objects And How Exactly These Measurements Quantitatively
Differ From What We Measure When These Objects Are At Rest.

Still you never forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
quickly", do you Clever Moortel:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev



http://www.aces.edu/counties/Tallapo...s/04-11-07.htm
"Most first frosts occur from a strong cold spell that followed
many days of warm weather. Our long growing season and
mild fall temperatures allows many plants to continue to
grow until true cold weather arrives. When this occurs, many
of our tender plants, especially houseplants and bedding
plants, are caught off guard by the changes in temperature
and may get damaged or killed. Woody plants that are
adapted for our area typically survive without problems."

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:44:59 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:34*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Dr. Henri Wilson HW@.... wrote in message
*

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.

When anyone measures the pitch of an approaching train's whistle,
he finds a value different from what he finds when the trains is
standing still. In Wilson world something is wrong with the experiment.
When anyone measures the kinetic energy of a moving body, we
he finds a positive value. When he measures the kinetic energy of
the same body at rest, he finds zero. In Wilson world something
is wrong with the experiment.



In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".

We have never been able to explain to Henry (or many others)
that special relativity is a theory that, in the context of what he is
alluding to here, merely describes What We Measure On Moving
Objects And How Exactly These Measurements Quantitatively
Differ From What We Measure When These Objects Are At Rest.

Still you never forget to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
quickly", do you Clever Moortel:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Hahahaha!
I think his barn has been smashed into little pieces.

Pentcho Valev




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

Explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment within Einsteiniana:

CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:

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: "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."

SILLY EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
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."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
"In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
up. 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!"

EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...periments.html
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 10, 11:57*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment within Einsteiniana:

CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:

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: "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."

SILLY EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
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."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...istory_of_rela...
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...42003619,00.ht...
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
"In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
up. 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!"

EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...SR/experiments....
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

Pentcho Valev


Dear Pentcho: M-M never passed the Scientific Method. If simple
algebraic analysis had been done by anyone before yours truly, there
would be no space-time and no relativity junk. The "apparent" lack of
an ether medium to speed or slow the light in M-M was because no one
before me realized that having a 45 degree mirror (beam splitter) in
both light courses allowed such to AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT for the speed-
up or slow-down of the light. My successful X, Y & Z interferometer
experiment easily detects Earth's movement in the Cosmos; proves that
'c' isn't the maximum; and disproves space-time and Einstein's
relativity ideas. CASE closed! — NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4e8112ed?hl=en

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:57*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment within Einsteiniana:

CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:

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: "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."

SILLY EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
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."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...istory_of_rela...
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...42003619,00.ht...
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
"In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
up. 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!"

EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...SR/experiments....
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

Pentcho Valev


Dear Pentcho: M-M never passed the Scientific Method. If simple
algebraic analysis had been done by anyone before yours truly, there
would be no space-time and no relativity junk. The "apparent" lack of
an ether medium to speed or slow the light in M-M was because no one
before me realized that having a 45 degree mirror (beam splitter) in
both light courses allowed such to AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT for the speed-
up or slow-down of the light. My successful X, Y & Z interferometer
experiment easily detects Earth's movement in the Cosmos; proves that
'c' isn't the maximum; and disproves space-time and Einstein's
relativity ideas. CASE closed! — NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4e8112ed?hl=en

Forget the MMX, NoEinstein. The explanation is trivial. Light is ballistic.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.

On Sep 11, 7:45*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:41:16 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:





On Sep 10, 11:57*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Explanations of the Michelson-Morley experiment within Einsteiniana:

CLEVER EINSTEINIANS:

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: "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."

SILLY EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
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."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...istory_of_rela....
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...42003619,00.ht....
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
Chapter 1: "VERY SILLY"
"In 1887, in one of the most important scientific experiments ever
undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley
showed that the apparent speed of light was not affected by the motion
of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling for everyone at the
time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that speeds always add
up. 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!"

EXTREMELY DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS:

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physi...SR/experiments.....
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous æther”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the æther became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

Pentcho Valev


Dear Pentcho: *M-M never passed the Scientific Method. *If simple
algebraic analysis had been done by anyone before yours truly, there
would be no space-time and no relativity junk. *The "apparent" lack of
an ether medium to speed or slow the light in M-M was because no one
before me realized that having a 45 degree mirror (beam splitter) in
both light courses allowed such to AUTOMATICALLY CORRECT for the speed-
up or slow-down of the light. *My successful X, Y & Z interferometer
experiment easily detects Earth's movement in the Cosmos; proves that
'c' isn't the maximum; and disproves space-time and Einstein's
relativity ideas. *CASE closed! *— NoEinstein —

Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...4e8112ed?hl=en

Forget the MMX, NoEinstein. The explanation is trivial. Light is ballistic.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

There is no food shortage, just an excess of people. Send abortion pills not food aid.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: And so are you (ballistic), every time you hear the
truth. — NoEinstein —