🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6039/jd9.html
"An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking by John Doan, Melbourne,
29 August 97....There's only one thing that I want to raise with you
in this letter, and it's Einstein's second postulate. Why can't you
step out from Einstein's shadow and change relativity, Professor
Hawking? Why should you accept Einstein's second postulate that the
speed of light is absolute, resulting all paradoxes about time
dilation? Why should you accept that c + v = c, in the sense that a
light spent from Earth to a spaceship has to be measured as c
regardless how fast the spaceship is travelling relative to Earth? How
much evidence have you truly seen?....Your students would still keep
asking the same questions your teachers have asked before. Many people
are still confused. Some understand but cannot explain to idiots. Some
don't understand but have stopped asking to stop being called idiots,
too. And why should we deserve this? Why should we waste time
imagining what our world would be like since Einstein said light is
absolute? Why don't we go back and ask what if Einstein is wrong, that
light is not absolute, that in fact c + c = 2c?....I have a dream,
that one day Professor Hawking would write the first non-Einstein
relativity book with an opposite second postulate, and I would be one
of first readers congratulating you for helping me understand
it.....If you say c + c = 2c, you certainly could make more sense than
Einstein's postulate saying c + c = c. Yet where is non-Einstein
relativity? Why can't you invent it, Professor Hawking? What has
stopped you?"

Naive John Doan! "Professor" Stephen Hawking does not even know that
the Michelson-Morley experiment was inconsistent with Einstein's 1905
false light postulate:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally showed that the
speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light (yet by introducing miracles such as
length contraction FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein managed to confuse
and even replace this straightforward interpretation):

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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com