🚀 go-pugleaf

A somewhat confused but still going in the right direction book by Tom
Bethell:

http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Einstein-Relativity-Tom-Bethell/dp/0971484597
"Then what is the quarrel with Einstein? Bethell argues that special
relativity theory is wrong and general relativity theory is not
necessary."

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/17/can-we-do-without-relativity
Can We Do Without Relativity? By Tom Bethell
"SOMETHING TELLS ME THAT MY NEW BOOK -- Questioning Einstein: Is
Relativity Necessary? -- is unlikely to be reviewed. So I shall say
something about it here. (...) The general theory gives the right
answers but by a complicated and roundabout route. Meanwhile a simpler
path lay at hand. But the special theory may have to be discarded
because the logical consequences of its postulates do not correspond
to experimental results."

See also:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Peter Hayes: "The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological
rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the
features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent
scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing
relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers
doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental
results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to
defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other
branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special -
to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist.
According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special
and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one
side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called
upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the
triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in
the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699
"In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it
behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to
remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are
now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical
connection."

The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light
consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of
light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More
precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light
source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is
it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory?

Relevant quotations:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
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."

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."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given
by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation
c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka
experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such
experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's
Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com