🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 3/15/09, Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Previous open letters:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6039/jd9.html
> "An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking by John
> Doan, Melbourne, 29 August 97....There's only one thing
> that I want to raise with you in this letter, and it's
> Einstein's second postulate. Why can't you step out
> from Einstein's shadow and change relativity, Professor
> Hawking? Why should you accept Einstein's second
> postulate that the speed of light is absolute, resulting all
> paradoxes about time dilation? Why should you accept that c
> + v = c, in the sense that a light spent from Earth to a
> spaceship has to be measured as c regardless how fast the
> spaceship is travelling relative to Earth? How much evidence
> have you truly seen?....Your students would still keep
> asking the same questions your teachers have asked before.
> Many people are still confused. Some understand but cannot
> explain to idiots. Some don't understand but have
> stopped asking to stop being called idiots, too. And why
> should we deserve this? Why should we waste time imagining
> what our
>  world would be like since Einstein said light is absolute?
> Why don't we go back and ask what if Einstein is wrong,
> that light is not absolute, that in fact c + c = 2c?....I
> have a dream, that one day Professor Hawking would write the
> first non-Einstein relativity book with an opposite second
> postulate, and I would be one of first readers
> congratulating you for helping me understand it.....If you
> say c + c = 2c, you certainly could make more sense than
> Einstein's postulate saying c + c = c. Yet where is
> non-Einstein relativity? Why can't you invent it,
> Professor Hawking? What has stopped you?"
>
> Naive John Doan! Professor Stephen Hawking does not even
> know that the Michelson-Morley experiment had refuted
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate: its negative result
> shows that the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the
> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
> light:
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
>
> Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace
> himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a
> gravitational field so strong that light could not escape,
> but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated
> that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred
> and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
> although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had
> been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John
> Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of
> the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of
> light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls,
> that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back
> on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
> Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light
> always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six
> thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How
> then could gravity slow down light,
>  and make it fall back."
>
> http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
>
> Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same
> direction as the light, you would expect that its speed
> would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the
> opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear
> to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any
> evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the
> ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
> was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the
> Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if
> light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no
> matter how you were moving."
>
> Einsteinians much cleverer than Stephen Hawking:
>
> 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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as
> Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen
> weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A
> stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage
> than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
> particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles
> and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they
> will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically
> account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local
> time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen,
> Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar
> Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate
> something that was more or less obvious when thought of in
> terms of waves in an ether."

Stephen Hawking teaching lies just a few days ago:

http://www.physorg.com/news156450506.html
"Hawking's lecture focused on black holes, a term coined by American
physicist John Wheeler. Hawking discussed the history of black holes
beginning with British physicist John Michell in 1783, who suggested
that there might be "Dark Stars" whose gravity is strong enough to
trap light and prevent the stars from being seen from far away. Two
Americans, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, proved that the speed
of light is invariant and does not depend upon where it comes from.
Therefore, Michell's picture of Dark Stars is not entirely correct."

Of course Hawking is unable to do otherwise - the lie according to
which the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed Einstein's 1905
false light postulate was introduced by Einstein himself in 1921:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."

Einsteinians much cleverer (and somewhat more honest) than both
Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein:

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE
LOGIQUE."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com