🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 31 2007, 8:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/artigos/essay-einstein-relativity.pdf
> JohnStachel: "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 usual velocity
> addition law is then replaced by a new one, in which the velocity of
> light "added" to any other velocity ("added" in a new sense-it would
> be better to say "compounded with") does not increase, but stays the
> same! The Maxwell-Lorentz equations, when examined with the aid of
> this new kinematics, prove to take the same form in every inertial
> frame. They are, therefore, quite compatible with the relativity
> principle, which demands that the laws of electricity, magnetism and
> optics have this property. The presence or absence of an electric or
> magnetic field, is then also found to be relative to an inertial
> frame, allowing a completely satisfactory relativistic analysis of the
> example of the conducting wire loop and magnet in relative motion.
> Within six weeks of taking "the step," Einstein later recalled, he had
> worked out all of these consequences and submitted the 1905 SRT paper
> to Annalen der Physik. This does not imply that Lorentz's equations
> are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein
> already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the
> processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body
> radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible
> with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light
> compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. 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."
>
> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> JohnStachel: "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."
>
> 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."
>
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=27&ContentID=52711
> "Professor StephenHawkingsays he is involved in work which "with
> luck" will answer "some of the ultimate questions". Much of the work
> is centred at Cambridge University's new Centre for Theoretical
> Cosmology. (....) "We are now working on the unification of Einstein's
> General Theory of Relativity, which governs the large-scale structure
> of the universe, with Quantum Theory, the theory of the very small.
> "This unification should determine what happened in the Big Bang and
> how the universe began." He added: "The centre will work to develop
> theories of the universe which are both mathematically consistent and
> observationally testable. "IT WILL BUILD ON A TRADITION DATING BACK TO
> ISAAC NEWTON OVER THREE CENTURIES AGO."
>
> Hawkingis learning. Some time ago he still did not find it suitable
> to consider Newton's emission theory of light. Rather, like all other
> zombies in Einstein criminal cult,Hawkingbelieved that the Michelson-
> Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
> StephenHawking: "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."
>
> PerhapsHawkingchanged his mind after reading the cleverest
> Einsteinian's verdict:
>
> 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."

Strangely, sycophants teach Einstein zombie world that Hawking has
ACCOMPLISHED the unification of Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity and Quantum Theory:

http://www.mondostars.com/entertainment/stephenhawking.html
"Stephen Hawking: Eccentric, fearless and powerful. Stephen Hawking is
an English theoretical physicist and mathematics professor at the
University of Cambridge. His research in cosmology has led to the
unification of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Quantum
Theory."

Einstein zombie world is happy to hear both that Hawking has
accomplished the unification and that Hawking has just started working
on the unification. As for Hawking's mysterious "IT WILL BUILD ON A
TRADITION DATING BACK TO ISAAC NEWTON OVER THREE CENTURIES AGO",
Einstein zombie world has no idea what that could mean. Perhaps
Hawking just wants to return to Newton's emission theory of light that
contradicts Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Perhaps Hawking
wants to return to Newton's emission theory of light but without
abandoning Einstein's relativity, just as John Stachel and Jean
Eisenstaedt are trying to do. Who knows.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com