On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 18, 4:07 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

On 18 Jul, 14:50, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 16, 4:53 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in sci.astro:

......................
I still don't understand why you bother posting similar material to
these groups again and again and again. The people here are not the
people you need to convince and the danger is that you are seen as
obsessed with the matter to the exclusion of many other, equally
interesting, scientific issues/cover-ups/errors.

Please share your motivation with the group.

Please consider the following quotation but pay some more attention to
what is said about "later writers":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

It's history. History deals  about things which are over and gone.
While history may be quite interesting if one cares,
the main purpose of history is to feed the historians.

Pentcho, we are living in 2008 now. Wake up.

We have a typical Goebbels' situation: "later writers" have repeated a
lie countless times and the world is now used to it, although the
truth is almost obvious. What can I do? Repeating the obvious truth
seems to be the only possible reaction.
.....

What truth, Pentcho?
You have not  demonstrated a single little tiny bit of truth yet.
Even hanson is better, regarding that.
hanson says, relativity is there to boost "Einstein Watch" sales:
http://www.wackyplanet.com/einstein-relativity-watch.html
How right he is.

w.