A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old September 12th 20, 10:30 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Physics

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

That is, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light. But let us draw a much weaker conclusion:

The Michelson-Morley experiment does not support the constancy of the speed of light.

Then why do high priests in the Einstein cult teach, almost universally, that the Michelson-Morley experiment does support the constancy of the speed of light? And why does the scientific community never protest?

The answer is obvious: Post-truth science (the truth is immaterial).

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Einsteinian (Both Post-Truth and Post-Sanity) Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 18th 20 11:27 PM
Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 April 25th 19 03:33 PM
Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 December 20th 17 11:37 PM
Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 November 6th 17 06:18 PM
Physics in the Post-Truth World: Major Breakthroughs Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 12th 17 09:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.