🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 14, 5:43 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For the moment John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt are the only
> Einsteinians who want to reintroduce Newton's emission theory of
> light, without abandoning (at least not explicitly) Einstein's
> idiocies:
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
> John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
> particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
> into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
> theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
> phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
> gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
> the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
> Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
> seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
> theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
> was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
> the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
> call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
> publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
> of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
> very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
> explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
> his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
> mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
> the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
> beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
> later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
> emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
> stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
> years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
> adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
> of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
> special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
> limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."

While John Stachel teaches that Newton's emission theory and
Einstein's relativity are compatible:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

his friend in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton, teaches the
opposite:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."

Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have discovered that, if you
teach both assertions and their negations, rationality in Einstein
zombie world disappears irreversibly so from some point on you can
teach anything - there will be no reaction at all.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com