🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 3, 10:35 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 1:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Scientific/Courses/Special_Topics_in_Physics/
> > The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity and Cosmology
> > Instructor: Lee Smolin
> > Type: This is a University of Waterloo credit course. Students must
> > register through UW. Dates: January - April 2008, each Wednesday from
> > 7:00pm - 10:00pm Location: Perimeter Institute, Bob Room
> > "Following this physical introduction we will read the key texts from
> > the history of physics and philosophy concerning the meaning of time,
> > such as Newton, Leibniz, Mach, Einstein etc."
>
> > I suggest the following key texts from Einstein:
>
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > Albert Einstein: "....light is always propagated in empty space with a
> > definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
> > emitting body......From this there ensues the following peculiar
> > consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks
> > which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
> > clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
> > on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the
> > clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B
> > by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being
> > the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent
> > that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in
> > any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. If we
> > assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a
> > continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
> > synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
> > velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
> > the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its
> > arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."
>
> > Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
> > the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
> > theory of gravity is false."
>
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> > Albert Einstein: "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."
>
> > And just a single key text from the martyr, Bryan Wallace:
>
> > 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."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Do you have something against Einstein?

He should have explained that "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures" meant that the speed of light is inconsistent with the
field concept of light (that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
false). Rather, the speed of light is consistent with Newton's
emission theory:

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."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com