The looming specter of Walther Ritz (no wormholes to hide,
Einsteinians):

http://www.sps.ch/fr/artikel/geschic...physicist_ 2/
Jan Lacki: "Ritz had no time to make his theory more elaborate. He
died complaining that no one, even in Göttingen, was granting his
views sufficient care. His emissionist views were submitted to heavy
criticism and experimental tests were later realized to show their
inanity. Today, with considerable hindsight, we know the end of the
story and how Einstein and Planck's views shaped our contemporary
physics. While few would today contest the reality of quanta or turn
their back on field theory of elementary processes, it is interesting
to know that the criticisms against Ritz's conceptions were shown,
since then, often wanting, if not simply incorrect. It is fair to say
that if Ritz's emission theory is false, it cannot be as easily
dismissed as it was thought in Ritz's times. Be it as it may, Ritz
remains in the history of physics as an admirable figure, with a
highly original theoretical turn of mind and an impressive command of
mathematical methods, making him one of the emblematic theoreticians
of his time. In retrospect, if he refused to adhere to the ongoing
physics revolutions, he was highly aware of what kind of fundamental
problems were at stake, and already this lucidity ranks him among the
best."

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion
like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the
laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of (...) the
notion of field..."

The divine plagiarist also abandoned the notion of field at the end of
his life:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "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."

Clues:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a
discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of
Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous
conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"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."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

Pentcho Valev