On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:49:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "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
>
> So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:
>
> "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:
>
> "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:
>
> Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.
>
> So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
> red shift blue shift
>
> http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
>
> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev
I really appreciate your highly intelligent commentary showing how easy it is do without relativity.