🚀 go-pugleaf

"Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:55b8bcbc-31a7-4896-a502-e16f99f0989e@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 16, 12:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: > > On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > > >http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1113/2
: > > > "The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
: > > > Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
: > > > developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible 
violations
: > > > of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
: > > > theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
: > > > wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient 
that
: > > > is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
: > > > that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
: > > > relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
: > > > credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
: > > > "Einstein was not quite right."
: >
: > > > I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
: > > > Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
: > > > what Alan Kostelecky says.
: >
: > > > Pentcho Valev
: >
: > > I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
: > > mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.
: >
: > 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."
: >
: > Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
: > WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:
: >
: > 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."
: >
: > As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
: > quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with 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."
: >
: > A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
: > about this:
: >
: > http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
: > 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
:
: Boy, these arguments are sure getting complex.

Having trouble following them, girl?