🚀 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.
> ...........................................

Dishonest attempts to camouflage the fundamental role played by
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
"Why Einstein was wrong about relativity.....IMAGINE you are on a
bicycle, pedalling across the cosmos. A beam of light - perhaps sent
off by a distant collapsing star - zings past you. How fast are you
and the light approaching each other? You are travelling at hardly any
speed, so the answer will be more or less exactly light's speed
through the interstellar vacuum, around 300 million metres a second.
Now imagine you abandon pedal power for the day. Bowling along in your
spaceship at half light speed, you meet another light pulse head-on.
What is your speed of approach now? Surely it is just your speed plus
that of the light: in total, one and a half times light speed. Wrong.
Your speed of approach will be the speed of light, no more - and
that's true however fast you are travelling. Welcome to the weird
world of Einstein's special relativity, where as things move faster
they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that even talking about
events being simultaneous is pointless. That all follows, as Albert
Einstein showed, from the fact that light always travels at the same
speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell Feigenbaum, a
physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York, begs to differ.
He's the latest and most prominent in a line of researchers insisting
that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with light - whatever history
and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it not necessary," he says,
"but there's absolutely no room in the theory for it."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

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.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an 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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com