Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.

Pentcho Valev

unread,

May 28, 2008, 10:10:53 AM5/28/08

to

On May 28, 3:55 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> N.B. Note that this exercise has nothing to do with the SR explanation
> of MMX, which is as simple as "light propagate at c with respect to
> any inertial frame"

Trop stupide. The SR explanation of MMX is not simple at all, it is
even absurd. Tu ne lis jamais ce que tes maîtres intelligents
enseignent:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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
pva...@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev

unread,

May 28, 2008, 10:45:59 AM5/28/08

to

Evidemment tu ne lis que les idioties de maîtres aussi stupides que
toi:

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

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

Androcles

unread,

May 28, 2008, 11:32:49 AM5/28/08

to

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7d94db36-1cee-453f...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 28, 4:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 28, 3:55 pm, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > N.B. Note that this exercise has nothing to do with the SR explanation
> > of MMX, which is as simple as "light propagate at c with respect to
> > any inertial frame"
>
> Trop stupide. The SR explanation of MMX is not simple at all, it is

> even absurd. Tu ne lis jamais ce que tes maītres intelligents

> enseignent:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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."

Evidemment tu ne lis que les idioties de maītres aussi stupides que
toi:

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

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

Hawking is ranting lunatic.

--
Androcles

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/