🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 28, 9:59 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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."

In my view Divine Albert was NOT clinically insane and knew what was
going on - at least that is what John Stachel and Banesh Hoffmann
suggest:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." 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."

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