🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 18, 06:36, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 6:01 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > sci.physics.relativity:
> >> John Kennaugh wrote:
> >>> Jeckyl wrote:
> >>>> Emission theory, however, is refuted by Sagnac.
> >>> No. It is completely in agreement with Emission theory.
> >>> I know how ballistic theory explains it
> >> But nobody else does.....
>
> > YOU do Roberts Roberts.
>
> Not true. It's just that you are unable to read. <shrug>
>
> > You even claim that
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> > Tom Roberts: "There's no need for relativistic kinematics in
> > discussing the Sagnac effect.....at the Planck scale the fundamental
> > structure of the world is not continuous."
>
> Yes, there is indeed no need for relativistic KINEMATICS in discussing
> the Sagnac effect. If you had read this IN THE CONTEXT IT AS WRITTEN you
> would understand that. Other aspects of SR apply and explain the Sagnac
> effect, and quantitatively agree with the measurements.
>
> Your "....." omits too much, and the words following it have no
> relationship to the words preceding it.

Then let me show your whole statement:

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."

I think now you understand how dangerous this statement is Roberts
Roberts. It is closely related to Einstein's 1954 confession:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."

So your statement is not only dangerous, it is a serious crime
according to Einstein criminal cult and superior brothers will never
forget your criminal behaviour. In fact, only three hypnotists are
allowed to discuss the field concept of light, continuum,
discontinuum, the adoption of the emission theory of light etc. These
are John Norton, John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. As long as Einstein expected a viable theory of light,
electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of
objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible."

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."

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 ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com