🚀 go-pugleaf

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:06257615-5a59-4e15-9f3c-f8afd59c8c7b@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
>> George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
>> contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
>> of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
>> must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
>> reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
>> that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
>> would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
>> be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
>> hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
>> the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
>> retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
>> tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
>> fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
>> again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
>> to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
>> account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
>> necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
>> exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
>> tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
>> knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
>> of the truth."
>
> Newton's emission theory of light is incompatible with Einstein's
> relativity. Newton's emission theory of light is compatible with
> Einstein's relativity:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
> John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
> relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
> velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."
>
> 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".
> "This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
> to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
> applying them to the apparently quite different field of
> electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
> came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
> more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
> this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
> paper. 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.....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.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
> relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
> nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
> basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
> to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
> they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
> its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
> Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
> emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
> with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
> beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
> be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
> the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
> sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
> theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
> of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
> two."
>
> 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
> pvalev@yahoo.com

A surprisingly nice post :)