🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 11, 2:06 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> On Feb 11, 1:51 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> > It  is now quite clear that Einstein's theory of relativity is complete bunkum
> > from start to finish. There is not a believable ounce of supporting evidence.
>
> A curious way of wording things, Ralph. You acknowledge tacitly that
> there /is/ evidence, just that /you/ don't believe it.
>
> That the rest of the physics community find the evidence believable
> and that the rest of the physics community is vastly larger than even
> all the participants and the sockpuppets in this newsgroup should tell
> you something.
>
> > It is also clear that the physics establishment is currently ruled by second
> > and third generation indoctrinees who will ostracise anyone who dares to oppose
> > the official line..... The methods of Major Tom and the papal guard are prime
> > examples of its ruthlessness  <shrug>.
>
> If modern physics is all wrong, then how did the "wrong" theories
> supplant the "correct" theories? At what point in time, in your
> estimation, did the "wrong" theories take over?

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905
"....light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."

The wrong theory produces breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length
contraction etc.), the correct (Newton's) theory cannot. People love
miracles.

> Why are you unwilling to discuss Einstein's contributions to physics
> that aren't related to relativity?

Banesh Hoffmann discusses Einstein's 1905 discovery that light
consists of particles in the following way:

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com