🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 31, 5:51 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 8:57 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/artigos/essay-einstein-relativity...
> > 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/...
> > 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
> pva...@yahoo.com


What do you expect from mere nodes in a neural network?