🚀 go-pugleaf

Why Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will never be abandoned:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0703/0703751v1.pdf
George F R Ellis: "The overall message is that you can’t just alter
the speed of light in one or two equations and leave the rest of
physics unchanged. It plays a central role in modern physics [4],
particularly because it is the invariant limiting speed of the Lorentz
group and so is built into any variables that transform under that
group, but also because electromagnetism is central to many physical
effects; in particular, light is central to measurement. On the
standard view, these various roles are tightly integrated together in
a coherent package in which the speed of light does not vary. Any
viable VSL theory has to propose a similarly integrated viable
alternative to the whole package of physical equations and consequent
effects (kinematical and dynamical) dependent on c. You can’t just
tinker with a few bits of the whole."

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."

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://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