🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 16, 5:37 am, Eric Baird wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:29:16 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
>
> <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >One can never know how exactly silly Einsteinans draw their
> >conclusions but at least one can guess. So this Eric Baird may have
> >decided to get rid of special relativity after reading the following
> >two texts:
>
> >http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
> >John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
> >relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
> >velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."
>
> >http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> >John Stachel: "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."
>
> >Eric Baird's possible conclusion: "Master John Norton clearly says the
> >emission theory is incompatible with special relativity whereas Master
> >John Stachel says it is compatible with "the theory". The only
> >solution to the problem is to abandon special relativity and continue
> >to worship, as fiercely as possible, general relativity."
>
> >Pentcho Valev
> >pva...@yahoo.com
>
> No ... since my name's being brought up here, I should point out that
> I'm not aware of having been influenced by either Stachel or Norton.
> The line of reasoning above doesn't really represent my position.

Here is your "position":

http://arxiv.org/html/gr-qc/9807084
Eric Baird: "4.1. Local lightspeed constancy. If two objects with
relative velocity v are separated by an effective gravitational
gradient with an associated terminal velocity v, then light passed
between the objects and riding this gravitational gradient can be
emitted at c relative to the emitter and received at c relative to the
absorber, and can have a range of intermediate velocities in the
intervening region that are dictated by the local gravitational
properties encountered along its path. This provides a gravitational
mechanism for local lightspeed constancy that is essentially
Einstein's amended 1911 description ("The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a
different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory
of relativity." [20] ), when motion shifts are considered as
gravitational effects (NB: in this model, the equivalent gravitational
terminal velocity between two events is route-dependent rather than
absolute). If we attempted to measure an intermediate speed in this
region by introducing a physical probe with a new velocity, the
presence of the probe would alter the surrounding geometry so that we
would again get a local measurement of c relative to the probe. DMS
models include a feature of quantum mechanics in that the act of
measurement cannot be isolated from the system that is being
examined."

Even zombies in Einstein criminal cult would find your "position" too
silly. Stop writing books! Withdraw books already published!

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com