🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 28, 9:23 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> This is a genuine question.
>
> From the arguments put forward by his supporters here....most of whom are
> obviously a few cents short of  a dollar....I would say that he didn't do it
> just for the money but really believed he was right.
>
> It is fair to say that anyone who would go to the such ridiculous lengths to
> decribe a fairytale universe in which space distorts so that light speed is
> always 'c', was no better than a Flat Earther, Earth Centrist, Pagan god
> worshipper or Spoon Bender.....and those were all mentally deranged, as we now
> know.
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Who knows. Perhaps some day the psychological analysis of the text
below will show whether or not Divine Albert sincerely believed in his
1905 false light postulate:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
Since it has often been contended by opponents of the theory of
relativity that the special theory of relativity is overthrown by the
general theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of
relativity, it is perhaps advisable to make the facts of the case
clearer by means of an appropriate comparison. Before the development
of electrodynamics the laws of electrostatics and the laws of
electricity were regarded indiscriminately. At the present time we
know that electric fields can be derived correctly from electrostatic
considerations only for the case, which is never strictly realised, in
which the electrical masses are quite at rest relatively to each
other, and to the co-ordinate system. Should we be justified in saying
that for this reason electrostatics is overthrown by the field-
equations of Maxwell in electrodynamics? Not in the least."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com