How the Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-16 22:18:51 UTC
Raw Message
Of the following two statements one is true, the other is false of course:

Statement 1: The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.

Statement 2: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

A correct experiment will be compatible with the true statement and incompatible with the false one - otherwise the experiment is not correct.

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Statement 1 and incompatible with Statement 2. It remained incompatible with Statement 2 for a few years - then Lorentz and FitzGerald fabricated, ad hoc, length contraction and other miracles and the experiment became compatible with Statement 2 and incompatible with statement 1.

Banesh Hoffmann confirms that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Statement 1 and incompatible with Statement 2:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-17 05:56:02 UTC
Raw Message
So we have thesis and antithesis, and no experiment can be compatible with both of them (unless the experiment is incorrect):

Statement 1: Speed of light varies with speed of the source.

Statement 2: Speed of light is independent of speed of the source.

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Statement 1 - accordingly, since the experiment was correct, it could not be compatible with Statement 2:

"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

After Lorentz and FitzGerald introduced their idiotic ad hoc assumptions, the Michelson-Morley experiment became compatible with Statement 2. Accordingly, since the experiment was still correct, it was now incompatible with Statement 1.

Again: Compatibility with both Statement 1 and Statement 2 (thesis and antithesis) is impossible unless the experiment is incorrect.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-17 14:58:16 UTC
Raw Message
The following confession is staggering:

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

That is, according to Stachel and Norton, Einstein was honest and taught the truth (the experiment confirms the principle of relativity but not the principle of constancy of the speed of light) while today's Einsteinians ("later writers") "almost universally" teach a blatant lie (the experiment confirms the principle of constancy of the speed of light).

Did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the blatant lie:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. 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."

Pentcho Valev