🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 1, 16:42, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> On Dec 1, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Snip
>
> > Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
> > geniuses:
>
> >Snip
>
> >http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
> > Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
> > question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
> > without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
> > only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
> > discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
> > relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
> > and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
>
> I don't think that Jong-Ping Hsu is correct about Ritz on this matter.
> Ritz went to his grave preaching c+v.
>
> http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
>
> Bob Fritzius

This Hsu seems to be a zombie, not a hypnotist. All hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult know that the equation c'=c+v given by the
emission theory of light is correct and that it is consistent with any
relevant experiment:

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."

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"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 need to explain the phenomena of interference,
diffraction and polarization of light gradually led physicists to
abandon the emission theory in favor of the competing wave theory,
previously its less-favored rival. Maxwell's explanation of light as a
type of electromagnetic wave seemed to end the controversy with a
definitive victory of the wave theory. However, if Einstein was right
(as events slowly proved he was) the story must be much more
complicated. Einstein was aware of the difficulties with Maxwell's
theory-and of the need for what we now call a quantum theory of
electromagnetic radiation-well before publishing his SRT paper. He
regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort of statistical average-of
what he did not know, of course-which worked very well to explain many
optical phenomena, but could not be used to explain all the
interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of his first light
quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids mention of the
ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up the ether
concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of
light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years later,
"which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission
theory of light."

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://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/fundoro/einstein_2nd/abstract_booklet_web.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from
Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and
relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John
Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation
on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the
same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to
gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light
could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put
forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect.
Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler-
Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of
the source and the observer."

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