🚀 go-pugleaf

On 26 déc, 11:25, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/artigos/essay-einstein-relativity...
> John Stachel: "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."
>
> The problem is not that a famous Einsteinian, John Stachel, claims
> that Newton's emission theory of light and special relativity are
> compatible. Famous Einsteinans claim anything. The problem is that
> there is NO REACTION in Einstein zombie world. Science has died.
> Irreversibly.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Retour de la gale en Angleterre : Les commerçants de la santé refusent
de soigner les galeux qui n'ont pas d'argent , et comme la
privatisation est faite , le délai de 6 mois d'attente dans les
"hôpitaux" (sortes de mouroirs) publics , permettent à l'épidémie de
se propager dans les milieux pauvres et travailleurs , à grande
vitesse .

Info communiquée par un proche qui vit en Angleterre .