STEPHEN HAWKING'S LOGIC

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...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."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=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.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

Stephen Hawking's logic:

PREMISE: The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of
light is independent of the movements of both the emitter and the
observer.

CONCLUSION: The speed of light is constant in a gravitational field.
JOHN MICHELL WAS WRONG.

Logic inherent in Newton's emission theory of light:

PREMISE: The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of
light varies with v, the relative speed of the emitter and the
observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

Confirmations of the emission theory's PREMISE in Einsteiniana:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

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."

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."

CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message news:fd02b363-484d-4549-aea8-

CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational

potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.

The speed of light in a vacuum is always C=3x10^8 meters per second. In General
Relativity, time runs at different rates at different locations in a gravity
field relative to a fixed point. So, relative to a given location, light's speed
can be observed to be different due to gravitational time dilation.

+

"K_h" wrote in message
...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
news:fd02b363-484d-4549-aea8-
|
| CONCLUSION: The speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational
|
| potential difference between the point of emission and the point of
| reception (observation) of the light, in accordance with the equation
| c'=c(1+phi/c^2). JOHN MICHELL WAS RIGHT.
|
| The speed of light in a vacuum is always C=3x10^8 meters per second.

You stupid, LYING *******.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- § 3. Theory of the
Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another
System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that
the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with
the principle of relativity." -- § 3. Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/


Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.

For those morons that don't know what a contradiction is, there are no
contradictions in the speed of light being c and also c-v simultaneously.

http://www.oocities.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?"

Naïve John Doan!

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"There is, nonetheless, some divergence about how to resolve the clock
paradox amongst mainstream scientists and philosophers who address the
issue. The majority suggest that (a) the general theory is required to
resolve the paradox because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite
correctly - that it cannot be explained by the special theory.
However, a minority believe that (b) the paradox can be explained by
the special theory because they have deduced - again quite correctly -
that it is incredible to suppose that only the general theory can
explain a prediction ostensibly arising from the prior special theory.
Each deduction, considered in isolation, is allowable within the
mainstream; what is not permitted is to bring the two of them together
to conclude that (c) neither the special nor the general theory
explains time dilation. (...) Einstein's theory of relativity fails to
reconcile the contradictory principles on which it is based. Rather
than combining incompatible assumptions into an integrated whole, the
theory allows the adept to step between incompatible assumptions in a
way that hides these inconsistencies. The clock paradox is symptomatic
of Einstein's failure, and its purported resolution is illustrative of
the techniques that can be used to mask this failure. To uncover to
the logical contradictions in the theory of relativity presents no
very difficult task. However, the theory is impervious to such attacks
as it is shielded by a professional constituency of supporters whose
interests and authority are bound up in maintaining its inflated
claims. Relativity theory, in short, is an ideology. (...) If
relativity theory is an ideology, then its illusory explanatory power
enhances the real power and authority of theoretical physicists.
Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can
draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the
apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a
disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage
in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the
language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal
content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the
status of the group, giving them power over others through the
enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct
research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 2:
"The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining
that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by
the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when
things move at speeds close to the speed of light."

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light varies
with v, the relative speed of the emitter and the observer, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory
of light. At least initially, prior to the advancement of the absurd
length contraction hypothesis by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the emission
theory was the ONLY one able to explain the null result of the
experiment. Clever Einsteinians know that but Hawking is not among
them. Magueijo is not among them either:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) The rest of my research work was
going well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find
that I had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is
the most desirable junior research position available in Britain,
perhaps anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten
years as well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever
you want. At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge,
and that it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved
big cities, so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top
university for theoretical physics."

Perhaps Hawking and Magueijo are clever but constantly exercise
themselves in doublethink which is even worse - "the more intelligent,
the less sane":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev