On Friday, 5 August 2022 at 20:06:37 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light and incompatible
with the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:
"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-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
The problem with Lorentz Newton and Einstein was twofold. Firstly they
assumed light is a particle. Incorrect. There has NEVER been any evidence
to date that light is particulate. Only overwhelming evidence it is a wave only.
And the second mistake they make was to not look at light speed in the
source frame. And MMX shows us it always travels at c in the source frame.
So. We know from Huygens, Young & MMX that light is a wave
and always travels at c in the source frame. And we also know this is true from
the “DeSitter” double star example that an observer on earth who is moving relative
to the source sees that the speed of light changes relative to the observer. But not the source. This is confirmed by the fact that light is redshifted
and then blue shifted as seen from observers here on earth.
(Without any evidence De Sitter ignores Huygens Young and MMX and
incorrectly assumes light is a particle and changes speed relativeTO THE SOURCE)
And finally although Pentcho correctly states that Aether theory, Lorentz and Einsteins conclusions are nonsense and not based on any empirical evidence whatsoever.....Pentcho incorrectly, and without any evidence, claims light is particulate.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)