🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 20, 6:58 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Harvey Brown's and Oliver Pooley's idea:
>
> MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY
>
> is extremely dangerous since it naturally leads to:
>
> PHYSICS: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY
>
> which sounds like Bryan Wallace's:
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> THE FARCE OF PHYSICS
>
> So the cleverest hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton,
> urgently published a rebutal which however is not convincing:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Constructive_Relativity.pdf
> John Norton: "These sentiments are captured more vividly in the
> earlier slogan of Brown and Pooley (2004) of Minkowski spacetime as a
> "glorious non-entity." This would make Brown's view a form of
> spacetime relationism, although I will suggest below in Section 6 that
> it might be more restrictive than familiar forms of relationism."
>
> The problem is that Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley CAN whereas John
> Norton CANNOT explain how a long train can be trapped inside a short
> tunnel:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=
>
> or a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley were honest scientists, their
slogan:

MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY

would take a more precise form:

EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE: A GLORIOUS FALSEHOOD

In fact, Einsteinians have always being trying to solve the following
problem:

"How to get rid of Einstein's false light postulate without destroying
Einstein money-spinner?"

This task is idiotic of course and Einsteinians know that; at least
dying Bryan Wallace has explained it to them quite clearly:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that
the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the
whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this
postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"

Still, without Einstein's false light postulate, Einsteinians would
somehow feel "less criminal" so they will never stop trying to get rid
of it:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

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."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."

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."

Pentcho Valev