CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html
"A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago
proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known
facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before
publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the
manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial
reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already
been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced
that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of
Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising
the question whether there are any experimental observations which
require relativity theory to explain them.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light
travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to
travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This
hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by
Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to
demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through
this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be
possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as
it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your
hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment
sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect.
But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could
detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been
expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern
visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.)
Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson
himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say
carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a
close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was
rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A.
Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract
slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just
sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but
unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption,
rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting
bigger at the same time.
Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested
a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of
light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any
apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with
different velocities would see the same things with different lengths
and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether.
Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out
mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were
made.
This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a
velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is
merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as
"absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as
strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the
second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were
completely remodeled.
Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged
from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account
for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a
simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of
deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the
premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are
trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein
officially:

http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE

Pentcho Valev