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


Groups > sci.physics > #632185

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

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

Show all headers | View raw


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


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