Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #632185
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) |
| Followup-To | sci.physics.relativity |
| Date | 2017-05-07 01:53 +0200 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <2819651.q07vAe2e99@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | <a8fa8c80-a7f2-4413-9ddc-edd0df2e1096@googlegroups.com> <77517f18-b662-4bc3-b0dd-fdb2f8a9a747@googlegroups.com> <oel060$1673$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
Followups directed to: sci.physics.relativity
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.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 01:40 -0700
Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 08:42 -0700
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
Re: Post-Truth Science (Einstein's Relativity) Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 16:18 -0700
csiph-web