|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First.
On Dec 12, 4:49*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: John Kennaugh wrote: 1/ The MMX was intended to measure the speed of an observer (on earth) relative to the aether. 2/ The result was that no motion w.r.t the aether was detected. 3/ The second postulate describes what an observer with no motion w.r.t the aether would experience. Hmmm. Your 1 and 2 are essentially correct. Your 3 is correct within itself, but is patently ridiculous IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DAY. The aether was thought to be a rigid medium permeating all of space and defining an absolute frame. So the earth cannot possibly have "no motion w.r.t. the aether" -- it orbits the sun, and the MMX was sensitive enough to measure the 30 km/s orbital velocity. Indeed, Michelson and Morley stated their result (an upper limit) in terms of the earth's orbital velocity. As I have said many times, TODAY the "origin" of Einstein's second postulate is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. SR can be derived from other, far more defensible postulates, and that one deduced from them. And in any case, physics is not a logical deduction system, and there is no need for postulates to be "true", they merely need to be VALID -- Einstein's second postulate is OBSERVED to be valid in the world we inhabit. That is what is needed in science, regardless of whatever it is you are trying to do. I say that is where the second postulate comes from. But Einstein himself said otherwise. Somehow I believe him more than you. In particular, he mentioned several other experiments that failed to find motion w.r.t. the aether; decades later when he was asked specifically about the MMX and SR he could not remember whether he was aware of the MMX in 1905 or not... Yet in 1921 Divine Albert was fiercely developing the myth according to which the Michelson-Morley experiment had CONFIRMED his 1905 false light postulate: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "Professor Albert Einstein delivered the first of a series of four lectures at the College of the City of New York yesterday before the Faculty and their guests.....Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." Then "later writers" (see below) converted the myth into one of the absolute truths in Einstein zombie world, equivalent to the absolute truth 2+2=5 established in Big Brother's world: 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." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First.
On Dec 13, 12:01*am, (richardhachel) wrote in
fr.sci.astrophysique: Pentcho Valev a écrit: THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.' *Ta phrase est biaiseuse. *Je veux bien que l'expérience de Michelson-Morlay *soit davantage compatible avec une théorie balistique *qu'avec une théorie ondulatoire. *Mais le problème, c'est que la théorie balistique *se trouve en défaut par le phénomène d'aberration de la lumière des étoiles. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-10/2-10.htm "Thus, according to emission theories, if the source is moving directly toward or away from us with a speed v, then the light from that source is approaching us with a speed c+v or c-v respectively. Naturally this class of theories is compatible with experiments such as the one performed by Michelson and Morley, since the source of the light is moving along with the rest of the apparatus, so we wouldn't expect to find any directional variation in the speed of light in such experiments. Also, an emission theory of light is compatible with stellar aberration, at least up to the limits of observational resolution. In fact, James Bradley (the discoverer of aberration) originally explained it on this very basis." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First. | Androcles[_8_] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | December 8th 08 09:36 PM |
Doppler shift vs second postulate | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 4th 08 10:46 PM |
Doppler shift vs second postulate | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 7 | June 4th 08 03:34 PM |
Google violates sovereignty by operating a communications networkwith spy cameras (and robbery of culture, humanitarian fascism) | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 7th 08 07:15 AM |
Stars Violates Conventional Stellar Model - Mainstream: 0, New Comology:1 | Mad Scientist | Misc | 2 | September 7th 04 06:21 PM |