🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 8, 10:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:34 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
> > "With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
> > starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
> > Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
> > - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
> > cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
> > nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
>
> > However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:
>
> > http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
> > LeeSmolin- ISSYP Keynote Session
> > Speaker(s):LeeSmolin
> > Abstract:
> > Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm
>
> > http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9&shouldResize=False
> >LeeSmolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
> > lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
> > it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
>
> That is a mystery. Lee Smolin is silly but by no means cretin. All
> criminal Einsteinians know that Newton's corpuscular model of light
> does imply bending caused by a gravitational field, and some even
> teach so. Perhaps we deal with absolute dishonesty in all such cases:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> 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. This was impossible, according to the
> then accepted ideas of space and time. But in 1915, Einstein put
> forward his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity."
>
> Again, Stephen Hawking is silly but by no means cretin. Even Einstein
> zombies now know that the Michelson-Morley experiment shows the speed
> of light is variable, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of
> light:
>
> 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://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
> (I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
> Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
> Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
> "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
> comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
> plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
> train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
> d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
> particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
> Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
> obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
> relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
> recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
> transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
> Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
> la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
> simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
> moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
>
> Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
> of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
> earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
> moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
> rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
> consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
> particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
> not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
> transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
> Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
> temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
> simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
> evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Yes criminal Einsteinians are mysterious individuals. They are either
extremely silly or extremely dishonest or both but one can never be
sure:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity. Because Einstein's special
theory is only a kind of approximation to his general theory, we can
implement the principles of the latter but find modifications to the
former. And this is what seems to be happening! So Gambini, Pullin,
and others calculated how light travels in a quantum geometry and
found that the theory predicts that the speed of light has a small
dependence on energy. Photons of higher energy travel slightly slower
than low-energy photons....A very exciting question we are now
wrestling with is, How drastically shall we be forced to modify
Einstein's special theory of relativity if the predicted effect is
observed? The most severe possibility is that the principle of
relativity simply fails....But there is another possibility. This is
that the principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special
theory of relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to
have a speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have
learned in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon
can have an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com