🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 3/12/09, Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> 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
> pvalev@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.......
> ...............................

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14820099.900-face-the-mistake.html
NewScientist: "Einstein clearly only considered the differences in
velocity between the two clocks, so Nash's discussion of the effects
on time caused by acceleration and real or apparent gravity hardly
seems relevant. On the other hand Henty is correct to point out that
it is an error to apply special relativity to the clock on the equator
on the assumption that its motion is uniform, but - as is clear from
the above quotation - it was not Dingle but Einstein who introduced
this error. Dingle simply quoted Einstein's argument and drew
attention to the logical consequences which would follow from it. So
Einstein did get it wrong. Why not accept that he made a mistake,
rather than trying to defend what is clearly an indefensible
position?"

Why not, Dr. Rees? Is Herbert Dingle's sad story going to remain
hidden forever? What prevents you from organizing a discussion
entitled, say, "Rotating Motion and Special Relativity" and analysing
any word in the controversial Chapter 23 in Einstein's "Relativity":

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html

Is looking for truth so painful for people like you?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com