🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 6, 7:06 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 12:09 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it
> > used to be:
>
> > http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity
> > Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
> > David Albert and Rivka Galchen: "The status of special relativity,
> > just more than a century after it was presented to the world, is
> > suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing question. This
> > situation has come about because physicists and philosophers have
> > finally followed through on the loose ends of Einstein's long-
> > neglected argument with quantum mechanics—an irony-laden further proof
> > of Einstein's genius. The diminished guru may very well have been
> > wrong just where we thought he was right and right just where we
> > thought he was wrong. We may, in fact, see the universe through a
> > glass not quite so darkly as has too long been insisted."
>
> > Curiously, Einsteinians are still claiming that special relativity is
> > based on two postulates. Then, if its status "is suddenly a radically
> > open and rapidly developing question", perhaps some postulate is under
> > suspicion? This must be a grand secret between Einsteinians.
>
> Even Einsteinians in the journal Nature now know that Divine Albert's
> Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it used to be:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/full/458030a.html
> NATURE: "Historians showed that both the 1887 Michelson–Morley
> experiment on light travel and Arthur Stanley Eddington's 1919 eclipse
> observations, both said to provide key empirical support for
> Einstein's theories, were actually open to a variety of
> interpretations, even though the textbooks continued to offer myth-
> like accounts of the experiments' decisiveness."
>
> Why just "textbooks"? It is Nature's editor and fierce money-maker
> Philip Ball who used to offer "myth-like accounts":
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070907/full/news070903-20.html
> Philip Ball: "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"

Yet Philip Ball is relatively a money-making dwarf; here is a money-
making GIANT:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5683551.ece
"PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book
suggesting Albert Einstein’s lifelong search for a “theory of
everything” was probably a mistake....In his new book The Grand
Design, Hawking will suggest that the search for this “unified theory”
is probably futile – a notion that will prove controversial with many
colleagues....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time,
became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected
to sell well."

Stephen Hawking's new book will probably sell well because he may have
proved in it that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, which is
the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Stephen
Hawking's earlier discovery was that the Michelson-Morley experiment
had confirmed 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."

If in his new book Stephen Hawking has really proved that the
Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, which is the antithesis of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, the scientific world will be
able to speak of the theory of Hawking-Hoffmann-Norton-Newton (Michell
and Laplace will be forgotten again):

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