🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 12, 9:11 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@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
> 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.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 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."
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
> in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
> the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
> that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
> of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
> disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
> (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
> of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
> Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
> of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
> science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
> of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
> http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
> "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
> speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
> special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
> a constant speed for all observers..."
>
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
> Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
> effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
> the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
> that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
> same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
> sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
> based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
> of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
> Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
> possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
> but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
> as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
> shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
> possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
> violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
> ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
> did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
> College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
> coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
> seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
> was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
> had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
> Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
> relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751...
> "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
> clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
> particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
> same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
> of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
> consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
> all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
> up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
> using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
> for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to
> drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
>
> http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
> of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
> A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
> moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
> years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
> a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
> supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
> whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
> particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
> velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
> short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
> which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
> gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
> that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
> constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
> Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
> (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
> (1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
> the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
> Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
> and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
> time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
> the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
> also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
> thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
> easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
> call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
> structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
> experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
> forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
> is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
> of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
> had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
> theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
> Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
> historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
> the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
> context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF
> LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."

From the Royal Society


Dear Idiot

please fuck off!