Prev: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 6
Next: What is free/bind variable?
From: John Jones on 31 Mar 2010 10:25
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> 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."
>
> Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein
> has stopped short is:
>
> "My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The
> speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in
> accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."
>
> The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
> "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
> "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
> a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
> particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
> waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
> breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
> age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
> needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
>
> 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://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
> Radiation by 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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
> relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
> transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
> Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
> emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
> There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
> classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
> light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
> past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
> and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
> characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
> emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
> emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
> be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
> in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
> ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
> objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
>
> Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's
> book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while
> writing it.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Marshall on 31 Mar 2010 12:54
On Mar 31, 7:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:


"Einsteinercise"

Brilliant!


Marshall
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 31 Mar 2010 13:24
Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 31, 7:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Einsteinercise"
>
> Brilliant!

I really wish you wouldn't encourage Jones's lameass reposts like
this.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"Quincy, why should you not play with matches?"
"Because... [pause] Aahhh! I'm on fire!!"
From: John Jones on 1 Apr 2010 05:52
Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 31, 7:25 am, John Jones <jonescard...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Einsteinercise"
>
> Brilliant!
>
>
> Marshall
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: The Least Action Consistent Stable Universe and the Mathematics, Section 6
Next: What is free/bind variable?