Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #418428 > unrolled thread

Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-06 17:12 +0000
    Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 01:53 +0200

#418428 — Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity)

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>  "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)."

Why not at all? The red and the blue shifting must be a proof for the 
above??

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#418491

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Bordamos Alamidade":

> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>>  "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.

And it has been refuted numerous times, which is described further below in 
the referred Wikipedia article.  But a crackpot does not see what the 
crackpot does not *want* to see.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory#Refutations_of_emission_theory>

>>  [...]
>>  The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton.

How interesting, given that Newton died more than 200 years before the MMX.

>>  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)."

Newton’s corpuscular theory had been refuted in the 19th century already, 
for example by Fresnel’s diffraction experiments, published in 1815 and 
1818.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpuscular_theory_of_light#Sir_Isaac_Newton>
 
> Why not at all?

That is a stupid question.

> The red and the blue shifting must be a proof for the above??

No, and the natural sciences are not concerned with proofs (as you have been 
told /ad nauseam/).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift>

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web