🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 20, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
> Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
> June 13-15, 2008
>
> I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's
> relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he
> seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why
> Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life.
> Compare the following two quotations:
>
> 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 LIGHT,
> ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
> objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
>
> 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."
>
> Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers
> but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John
> Norton surely knows this.

Sillier hypnotists have already announced, unconsciously, the end of
Einstein's relativity by resurrecting Newton's emission theory of
light:

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