VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

In the absence of length contraction (one assumes that length
contraction is absurd) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
refutes Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c) and
confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light.

Is length contraction absurd? The following references give a
straightforward answer to this question:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement
du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi
paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non
seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets.
Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est
au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction
est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent
considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans
la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible.
Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message


+--- "Impotent Blithering Non-entity."---+

If the wavelength of light does not vary with the gravitational
potential (one assumes that the variation is absurd), then the Pound-
Rebka experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes Einstein's relativity and
confirms Newton's emission theory of light.

Is a wavelength varying with the gravitational potential absurd? If
the wavelength does vary with the gravitational potential, then, in
the absence of a gravitational field, it varies with the speed of the
observer (that is, if the latter variation is absurd, the former is
absurd too):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Obviously John Norton does not find a wavelength varying with the
speed of the observer absurd. Others do:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bethell4.1.1.html
Tom Bethell: "Einstein postulated - assumed - that the speed of light
is a constant irrespective of the motion, not just of the light
source, but also of the observer. And that "observer" part was very
hard to accept. A sound wave travels at a constant speed in air (of a
given temperature and density) whatever the motion of the sound
source. Sound from an airplane travels forward at a speed that is
unaffected by the speed of the plane. But if you travel toward that
approaching sound wave then you must ADD your speed to that of the
plane's sound wave if you are to know the speed with which it
approaches you."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement
La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas.
Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE. The Pound-
Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission theory's fundamental
equations:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured
at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m
tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency)
at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were
able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts
in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). This means that, in
Einstein's theories, the speed of light has always been VARIABLE in a
gravitational field. The constancy of the speed of light taught by
Stephen Hawking and other hypnotists in Einsteiniana is a relatively
recent fraud designed to additionally confuse believers' minds:

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...)"

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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . 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
[. . .] 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." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

Double-edged experiments in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (John
Norton and Tom Roberts are famous hypnotists in Einsteiniana):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Pentcho Valev

The confession that, apart from gloriously confirming Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c), the Michelson-Morley
experiment somehow confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given
by Newton's emission theory of light, has only come recently, when
theoretical physics is irreversibly dead, the scientific rationality
is completely destroyed and the public couldn't care less about both
c'=c and c'=c+v:

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."

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" is also a statement, true or false, that the public
couldn't care less about. In fact, it was Divine Albert who first used
the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of
special relativity":

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had
an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity
of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate
system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a
velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the
fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches
of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it
hold for only one system? he asked.
He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street.
If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the
vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with
the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light
traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved
slower and the principle apparently did not hold.
Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed
that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled
with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the
above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein
asked."

Needless to say, "later writers almost universally" continue to teach
the blatant lie according to which the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of light postulate (and the
public couldn't care less about what later writers almost universally
teach):

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! Einstein's 1905 special theory of
relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What
Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else
had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging
space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our
everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal.
Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing
that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the
relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only
aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into
the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are
written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of
light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the
vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this
basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our
understanding of how the universe works."

Pentcho Valev

Ordinary Einsteinians, in their chaotic movement, bump into the truth
sometimes:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...26baf9ccdc0040
Vesselin Petkov: "This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In
general relativity the speed of light depends on the diference of the
gravitational potentials (delta Phi) of the source and observation
points:
c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
However, in 1911 this formula lead Einstein to a wrong value of the
deflection angle of a light ray being deflected by the Sun. In 1916
Einsten got it right using the coordinate velocity of light. Since
then formula (1) has been neglected. But it is this velocity that is
involved in any calculations verifying the principle of equivalence."

However Einsteiniana's priests are vigilant. Tom Roberts immediately
restores the absolute confusion in Vesselin Petkov's mind:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c57b72201d6522
Vesselin Petkov wrote:
This is really an unbelievable case in physics. In general relativity the
speed of light depends on the diference of the gravitational potentials
(delta Phi) of the source and observation points:
c' = c[1 + (delta Phi)/c^2]. (1)
Tom Roberts: "This depends upon what you mean by "velocity of light".
Normally when that phrase is used, one implicitly or explicitly means
using standard coordinates, and under inertial conditions, or in a
local region, or some similar restrictions. In GR, an unconstrained
"velocity of light" can have any value whatsoever, and is not very
interesting."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "That each finds the others clocks slowed and rods shrunk
is troubling. But it is not immediately obvious that there is a
serious problem. If I walk away from you, simple perspective effects
make it look to each of us that the other is getting smaller. That
perspectival effect should not worry anyone. The car in the garage
problem is an attempt to show that the relativistic effects are more
serious than this simple perspectival effect. There is, it tries to
show, a real contradiction; and we should not tolerate contradictions
in a physical theory. Here is how we might try to get a contradiction
out of the relativistic effect of each observer judging the other to
have shrunk. Imagine a car that fits perfectly into a garage. The
garage is a small free standing shed that is just as long as the car.
There is a door at the right and a door at the left of the garage. The
car fits exactly - as long as it is at rest. Now image that we drive
the car at 86.6% speed of light through the garage from right to left.
The doors have been opened at the right and the left of the garage to
allow passage of the car. There is a garage attendant, who stands at
rest with respect to the garage. Can the garage attendant close both
doors so that, at least for a few brief moments, the car is fully
enclosed within the garage? According to the garage attendant, there
is no problem achieving this. At 86.6% the speed of light, the car has
shrunk to half of its length at rest. It fits in the garage handily.
The garage attendant can close both doors and trap the car inside."

The honest (but weaker) moiety of John Norton's split personality
says: "The car in the garage problem is an attempt to show that the
relativistic effects are more serious than this simple perspectival
effect. There is, it tries to show, a real contradiction; and we
should not tolerate contradictions in a physical theory."

Then the dishonest moiety of John Norton's split personality manages
to camouflage the real contradiction by assuming that the garage is
"just as long as the car". However Divine Albert's Divine Theory says
that even if the garage length were half of the car length (at rest),
the garage attendant would still be able to trap the car inside the
garage. Of the millions of Einsteinians all over the world not one
could think of a reason why the long-car-trapped-inside-the-short-
garage absurdity should be questioned, let alone rejected. This is
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In the absence of length contraction (one assumes that length
contraction is absurd) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
refutes Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c) and
confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light.

Is length contraction absurd? The following references give a
straightforward answer to this question:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement
du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi
paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non
seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets.
Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est
au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction
est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent
considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans
la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible.
Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

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."

Does the statement:

"physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures"

imply that physics should have been based on Newton's emission theory
of light, not on Einstein's special relativity? 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. 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
"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
"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
"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
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
"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."

Pentcho Valev

Why LOGICAL verification of Einstein's relativity is impossible in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

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
Peter Hayes: "The prediction that clocks will move at different rates
is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can
be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly
obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple
objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's
theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and
often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory
and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed
rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However,
physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that
relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically
consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack
the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim
that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple
apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge
that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter,
probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory.
The claim that the theory of relativity is logically consistent for
reasons that are too complex for non-professionals to grasp is not
only convenient, but is rhetorically unassailable - as whenever a
critic disproves one argument, the professional physicist can allude
to another more abstruse one. Einstein's transformation of the clock
paradox from a purported expression of the special theory to a
purported expression of the much more complicated general theory is
one example of such a defence. (...)
The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the
profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It
implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity
theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that
popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But
given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the
first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are
exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity
in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline
meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false
explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to
those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity
merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity
suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics
profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and
go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the
apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies
and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows
that they are unable to understand the theory.
The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev