🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 26, 12:25 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://cosmo.fis.fc.ul.pt/~crawford/artigos/essay-einstein-relativity.pdf
> 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.

An international team of leading philosophers and physicists:

http://www.routledge-philosophy.com/books/Einstein-Relativity-and-Absolute-Simultaneity-isbn9780415701747
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time."

A distinguished member of the international team of leading
philosophers and physicists:

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/ccallender/
"On Finding 'Real' Time in Quantum Mechanics" (draft) Absolute
Simultaneity. (Eds) W.L. Craig and Q. Smith. NY: OxfordUniversity
Press, 2007.
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction.1  Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure.  On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical.  The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian.  Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian
spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetime's many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame).  On
this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

The problem is not that leading philosophers and physicists claim
there is no relativity of simultaneity. Leading philosophers and
physicists are just looking for a new money-spinner that does not
involve Einstein's idiocies. The problem is that there is NO REACTION
in Einstein zombie world. Science has died. Irreversibly.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com