"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

That is, 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, accordingly, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light.. But:

Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

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

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "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
>
> That is, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local
> time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was
> compatible with Newton's variable speed of light

Yes, it is compatible with emission theory which is a variable light speed
theory.

>and, accordingly, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed
> of the light source) speed of light.

No, doesn’t follow. Michelson Morley is also compatible with relativity.

No single experiment can single out one theory at the exclusion of all
others.

> But:
>
> Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed
> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the
> theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> "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

that's NOT the problem. You can imply a friction with the impedance of
the empty space. The problem they have, inexplicable, is how that speed
adapts for everybody to be the same. When you friction one place, you
can't just cancel it other places.

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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein' collaborator, clearly suggests that the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), and only became compatible after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

An alternative claim that saves Einstein's relativity but is too silly: The Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light both originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") and after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

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

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> An alternative claim that saves Einstein's relativity but is too silly: The
> Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the constant (independent
> of the speed of the light source) speed of light both originally
> ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz
> transformations") and after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local
> time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

Well, they’re not fudge factors when they are experimentally verified. This
makes them difficult to dismiss as “too silly”.

>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 01:39:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, they’re not fudge factors when they are experimentally verified.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 01:39:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Well, they're not fudge factors when they are experimentally verified.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
> moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> clocks always did.

Right again.
Yes, of course, there is only one TAI,
and it always agrees with itself. [1]

Go find another open door to kick down,

Jan

[1] And again by agreement, once published, it cannot be changed.

On 21-Dec-21 1:27 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "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
>
> That is, 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, accordingly, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light. But:
>
> Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
A person convinced of their position would respond to criticism of it.
Valev almost invariably only replies to his own postings.
Sylvia.

On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 11:32:56 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 21 December 2021 at 01:39:22 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Well, they're not fudge factors when they are experimentally verified.
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
> > moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
> > clocks always did.
> Right again.

Of course. As it always was.