🚀 go-pugleaf

> The blatant lies of Postscientism (Joseph Goebbels: "If you tell a lie
> big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
> believe it"):
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/496904/relativity/252878/Special-relativity
> Encyclopædia Britannica: "The fact that the speed of light is the same
> for all observers is inexplicable in ordinary terms. If a passenger in
> a train moving at 100 km per hour shoots an arrow in the train’s
> direction of motion at 200 km per hour, a trackside observer would
> measure the speed of the arrow as the sum of the two speeds, or 300 km
> per hour (see figure). In analogy, if the train moves at the speed of
> light and a passenger shines a laser in the same direction, then
> common sense indicates that a trackside observer should see the light
> moving at the sum of the two speeds, or twice the speed of light (6 ×
> 108 metres per second). While such a law of addition of velocities is
> valid in classical mechanics, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed
> that light does not obey this law. This contradicts common sense; it
> implies, for instance, that both a train moving at the speed of light
> and a light beam emitted from the train arrive at a point farther
> along the track at the same instant. Nevertheless, Einstein made the
> constancy of the speed of light for all observers a postulate of his
> new theory. As a second postulate, he required that the laws of
> physics have the same form for all observers. Then Einstein extended
> his postulates to their logical conclusions to form special
> relativity."
>
> Will the scientific community ever be able to realize that in 1887 the
> Michelson-Morley experiment was INCONSISTENT with "the constancy of
> the speed of light for all observers" and consistent with the
> antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
> light? Is there any hope?

In the era of Postscientism heretics are often just as confused as
ordinary Einsteinians:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einstein’s Special Theory
of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the
contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great
deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory
of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special
Relativity’s relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology,
metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available;
hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication.
"The failure of nineteenth century attempts to detect the earth’s
motion
through the aether prompted a crisis in physics which compelled men
like
FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincare to reject the Newtonian
assumption that the Galilean transformation equations were sufficient
to
obtain invariant laws about observed phenomena in electrodynamics and
mechanics and to adopt instead the relativistic Lorentz
transformations. (...) Unfortunately for Einstein’s Special Theory,
however, its epistemological
and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable,
unjustified,
false, perhaps even illogical. (...) Apart from leaving unaddressed
the epistemological and semantic presuppositions of STR, there is an
even stronger factor behind physicists' unwillingness to abandon the
Special Theory. The Special Theory is a part of orthodox quantum field
theory (QFT) (quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics),
which aims to unify the Special Theory with quantum mechanics.
Physicists would be at a loss as to how to proceed if they rejected
the Special Theory as unjustified, since they (for the most part)
believe that this would require them to reject QFT. In the light of
this dependence on Special Relativity, physicists are not likely to
abandon it unless it is observationally disconfirmed and there is an
observationally adequate theory available to replace it. In fact,
there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the
Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely
Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com