🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 22, 17:30, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 14:00, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807
> >> > Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without special relativity
> >> > by Eric Baird (Author)
> >> > "Relativity theory has become one of the icons of Twentieth Century
> >> > science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
> >> > series of increasingly difficult mathematics and increasingly abstract
> >> > concepts. We're told that relativity theory is supposed to be this
> >> > complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
> >> > complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
> >> > paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Einstein's special theory and jump
> >> > directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
> >> > if curvature is a fundamental part of physics, and a final theory of
> >> > relativity shouldn't reduce to Einstein's "flat" 1905 theory //on
> >> > principle//? "Relativity..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
> >> > Twentieth Century physics - from black holes, quantum mechanics,
> >> > wormholes and the Big Bang to the workings of the human mind, and
> >> > asks: what would physics look like without special relativity?"
>
> >> Evolution in Selecting Nature: Life without Evolution
> >> by Beric Aird (Author)
> >> "Evolution theory has become one of the icons of Nineteenth Century
> >> science. It's reckoned to be a difficult subject, taught as a layered
> >> series of increasingly difficult common sense and increasingly abstract
> >> concepts. We're told that Evolution theory is supposed to be this
> >> complicated and counter-intuitive. But how much of this historical
> >> complexity is really necessary? Can we bypass the interpretations and
> >> paradoxes and pseudoparadoxes of Darwin's evolution theory and jump
> >> directly to a deeper and more intuitive description of reality? What
> >> if selection is a fundamental part of biology, and a final theory of
> >> Evolution shouldn't reduce to Darwin's "flat" 1859 theory //on
> >> principle//? "Evolution..." takes us on a whistlestop tour of
> >> Nineteenth Century biology - from black birds, quacking geese,
> >> hole worms and the Big Elephant to the workings of the human mind, and
> >> asks: what would biology look like without Evolution?"
>
> >> Dirk Vdm
>
> > Bravo Moortel! A witty zombie! However your work is not finished.
> > There is another text that should be dealt with by bellicose zombies:
>
> > http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
> > Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
> > vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> > que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ;
>
> Of course we don't know a theoretical reason for that, imbecile.
> We also don't know the theoretical reason why you are so
> frighteningly stupid.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Even in Einstein zombie world the theoretical reason sometimes takes
into account experiments:

http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sci.physique/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b836800?
On Dec 6, 16:37, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> > John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> > evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> > universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> > relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> > WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> > POSTULATE."
>
> Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other
> theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental
> record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.
>
> > THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
> > OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.
>
> Sure.

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."

Of course, Moortel, Master Tom Roberts' idea above:

Tom Roberts: "The fact that this one experiment is compatible with
other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."

could still be discussed (e.g. by considering the Sagnac effect
again), but I don't think hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult will
ever do so. Rather, Eric Baird's book "Life without special
relativity" is just an expression of the desire of ALL clever
Einsteinians to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and
its idiotic corollaries (time dilation, length contraction etc.):

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com