🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 4, 3:04 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://vaghelasv.com/Documents/Stephen.Hawking.A.Brief.History.Of.Tim...
> Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
> be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
> progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
> observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
> deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
> German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
> reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
> therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
> expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
> trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
> knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
> science."
>
> http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fau...
> "Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses.....Le monde entier a cru
> pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le
> savons aujourdhui, les premières preuves, issues notamment dune
> célèbre éclipse de 1919, nen étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie
> sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu
> à lavance, et sur des mesures entachées dincertitudes, quand il ne
> sagissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des...
> "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
> Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
> relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
> soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-...
> "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
> on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
> declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
> and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
> the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
> wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
> scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> action."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
> New Scientist: Ode to Albert
> "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
> bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
> at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
> theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
> the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
> measurements to confirm general relativity."
>
> No shame, Dr. Rees?
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Open Letter to: Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society
>
> Copy to: Athene Donald FRS, Laurence Eaves Lancashire-Spencer
> Professor of Physics, Prof John Peacock, Martin Taylor FRS, Lorna
> Casselton FRS
>
> Dear Dr. Rees,
>
> Ninety years ago the Royal Society found it suitable to bury
> definitively the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate - the
> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the
> speed of the light source relative to the observer) - although even
> then informed scientists including Einstein knew this particular
> prediction of the emission theory was correct. Since then a
> schizophrenic atmosphere has been established where informed
> scientists often hint at and even extract profit from the correct
> equation c'=c+v (see examples of guilty conscience below) while
> ordinary mortals are forced to learn by rote the absurd consequences
> of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. I think it is time for YOU
> to OFFICIALLY restore the truth.
>
> I will post this Open Letter on a few internet forums.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Examples of guilty conscience:
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
> laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
> Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
> 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
> Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
> they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
> than 30 leading cosmologists."
>
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
>
> http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> 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."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
> "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
> paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
> longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
> directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
> inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
> quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
> devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
> comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
> independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
> constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
> notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
> (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
> l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
> admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
> soit plus constante."
>
> 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."
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-rad...
> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
> Radiation by Albert Einstein
> Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
> light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
> Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
> this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
> theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
> considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
> purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
> that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
> light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
> light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
> as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
> Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
> our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
> state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
> like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
> of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
> the emitting to the absorbing object."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh
>
> read more »...

In this topic are presented too many opinions and too litle truth. How
is it possible? Are there people who doesn't like the triumf of the
truth? I present my truth about that question in this article:

                THE GENESIS OF THE FALSE THEORIES

  In this article is explained the way in which have appeared three
theories in physics about the description of the motion of material
bodes.
-The enormous problems in physics appeared with the discovery of the
light aberration by Bradley in 17th century. He gave an exceptional
explanation of this phenomenon by using the corpuscular theory of
light. He took the relation
tg(phi)=v/c, as being valid in this case, where c, is the light speed
and v, the linear speed of the earth evolving around the sun. By
determining the angle (phi)=40,9s, he calculated from the above
relation that c=303,000km/s. Obviously these results confirm perfectly
the Galilei- Newton theory but the corpuscular theory wasn’t accepted
at that time.
-As the scientists were not satisfied with this explanation, they
tried to explain the aberration by the point of view of the wavy
theory of the light. Robert Young did this explanation in 1804. But he
needed a material medium because the wavy phenomena as it is the case
of the sound propagation, can be transmitted only through a medium. In
this way was supposed that in cosmos must exist the ether, a substance
very fine with special properties.
-Such a substance is not discovered until now but that doesn’t stop
the scientists to continue to do researches in this direction.
-The biggest mess was done with the discovery of the Lorentz
transformation as a consequence of the wavy theory about the light
propagation, which introduced the abnormal conclusions, about the
contraction of the space and the time dilatation.
-Einstein accepted the Lorentz transformation as being a valid
mathematical relation and by this was emitted the Theory of the
relativity.
-The curious thing is that in both theories is not realized that this
transformation is obtained by a poor supposition that the propagation
of the light must be a wavy phenomenon!
In Einstein theory of the relativity the wrong conclusions are
enlarged and the space the time the mass and other, become relative
notions. These conclusions are a consequence of the Lorentz
transformation and because of that evidently are errant, but many
scientists accepted Einstein theory of the relativity as being
correct.
-And all these conclusions are based on only one desire the
assumption, that the propagation of the light must be a wavy
phenomenon.
But today is accepted the corpuscular theory about the propagation of
the light as being a photonic flux and the photon representing a
minimal quantity of energy. And this doesn’t matter. It is very
strange but is the real situation in physics today. We have three
theories, the ether theory the theory of the relativity and the
Galilei-Newton theory. Which of them is the right theory? Evidently,
only one of these three theories can be correct.
This question is explained in my articles published in Galilei-Newton
group and could be find at: http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
  Stamenin