WHAT HAPPENS TO FALSE THEORIES?

Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:

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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Postscientism: NOBODY CAN CHANGE ANYTHING. In 1954 Divine Albert
became Repentant Albert: he admitted, although in a somewhat enigmatic
way, that the pillar of contemporary physics, his 1905 constant-speed-
of-light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

was false:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "In sharp contrast, the
constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term
"heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light
theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the
constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of
modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more
structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant
theories."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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."

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/50282475...s-dans-loeuvre
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION (Louis de Broglie): "Tout
d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait expulsée de la théorie de la
Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une "théorie du champ" où le
rayonnement était représenté par une répartition continue dans
l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment au cours du temps sans
qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les domaines spatiaux au sein
desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très petites régions
singulières où le champ serait très fortement concentré et qui
fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce caractère à la fois
continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait prendre une forme
très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ lumineux venait se
confondre avec un certain type de champ électromagnétique."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: 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."

More clues to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION could be referred to but that
would be pointless. In the era of Postscientism the question:

Is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate true or false?

is entirely replaced by:

Who cares if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is true
or false?

Pentcho Valev