John Norton unwittingly exposes Einsteinians ("later writers") as blatant liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

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." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax. In 1921, already a deity, he declared that the experiment had proved constant speed of light, and the blatant lie has been universally taught ever since (post-truth science):

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." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 5:46:16 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light..."
>
> Einstein: "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."

Right, Einstein based his light speed principle on all the experimental support for the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetism, according to which light propagates at a fixed speed c in terms of at least one system of inertial coordinates, independent of the speed of the source. This is what rules out the emission theories, because in an emission theory the speed of light depends on the speed of the source. (An advocate of emission theories, Ritz, argued that the Maxwell equations are wrong, because he understood that if they are correct then emission theories are ruled out.)

So, having ruled out emission theories based on all the experiments supporting the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, Einstein asserts that light has speed c in terms of at least one system of inertial coordinates, and then asked: "But did it hold for only one system?" This is essentially asking if the principle of relativity applies to light propagation in vacuum, and for this the Michelson experiment confirms that, indeed, the principle of relativity does apply. Also, since we have already established that light propagates at c in terms of at least one inertial coordinate system, and since the Michelson experiment shows that the same laws of physics apply in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, it follows that the Michelson experiment *in combination with the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetism as supported by many other experiments* (which rules out emission theories) leads to the conclusion that light propagates at c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates.

So, what Norton said was correct (and well known), and what Einstein said was also correct, and the two are completely consistent.

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant 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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):

"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

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is
> trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the
> Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax. In 1921, already a deity, he declared
> that the experiment had proved constant speed of light, and the blatant
> lie has been universally taught ever since (post-truth science):

Excellent. Keep it up the good work, Vasily. I never understood who gave
him the idea to equate the curvature gradient to energy tensor, Guv = Tuv.
We just don't know.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 9:38:26 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light..

Your statement is garbled. It is self-evident that emission theory is nominally compatible with Michelson's result, but it is not compatible with all the experiments that support the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electrodynamics, so it is the latter, not the former, that rules out emission theories. In addition, special relativity (in either the Einsteinian or Lorentzian interpretation) is consistent with both the experimental basis of electromagnetism and with the results of Michelson, and with all other experimental results as well, whereas emission theory is abundantly disproven by numerous phenomena.

Finally, from a purely rational perspective, it makes no sense to say that an experiment "originally" proved something, and then later it didn't prove it. What you would have to say is that originally an experiment was (mistakenly) thought to prove X, but then it was later realized that it is also consistent with Y, and that Y turns out to be consistent with all experiments, whereas X is contradicted by the other experiments, so Y (quantum electrodynamics) is correct is X (classical emission theory) is false.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is
> trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the
> Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax. In 1921, already a deity, he declared
> that the experiment had proved constant speed of light, and the blatant
> lie has been universally taught ever since (post-truth science):

Excellent work. Keep it up the good work, Vasily. I never understood who
gave him the idea to equate the curvature gradient to energy tensor,

Guv = Tuv. We just don't know.

On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 5:46:16 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> John Norton unwittingly exposes Einsteinians ("later writers") as blatant liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":
>
> 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." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
>
> Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax. In 1921, already a deity, he declared that the experiment had proved constant speed of light, and the blatant lie has been universally taught ever since (post-truth science):
>
> 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." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

The liar lies. And as the first of his kind Einstein
didn't have to do it.