THE ESSENCE OF THE ANTI-EINSTEIN STANCE

The assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate)
DIRECTLY (that is, without recourse to other parts of the theory)
leads to the conclusion that the observer on the ground sees the clock
on the train running slow. See, for instance, p. 12 in David Morin's
text:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

Then the other postulate, the principle of relativity, DIRECTLY
entails that the observer on the train sees the clock on the ground
running slow. This is the famous clock or twin paradox that anti-
relativists find to be just one of Einstein's absurdities. But anti-
relativists rarely refer to the possible falsehood of the postulates,
as if driven by the desire to perpetuate the anti-Einstein campaign.
So let us call "above-board criticism of Einstein" one in which the
falsehood of the postulates is at least hinted at:

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 285:
Jacques Maritain: "Il ne reste plus alors qu'à avouer que la théorie
[d'Einstein], si l'on donnait une signification ontologiquement réelle
aux entités qu'elle met en jeu, comporterait des absurdités;
entièrement logique et cohérente comme système hypothético-déductif et
synthèse mathématique des phénomènes, elle n'est pas, malgré les
prétensions de ses partisans, une philosophie de la nature, parce que
le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, sur lequel
elle s'appuie, ne peut pas être ontologiquement vrai."

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." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of
Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1831761a0.html
Nature 183, 1761 (20 June 1959) Herbert Dingle: "AS is well known,
Einstein's special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1)
the postulate of relativity; (2) the postulate of constant light
velocity, which says "that light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body". For the first postulate there is much
experimental support; for the second, none."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "...the internal consistency of the restricted
relativity theory seems questionable if the postulate of the constancy
of the velocity of light is given its usual interpretation... (...)
These difficulties are removed if the postulate be interpreted MERELY
as requiring that the velocity of light relative to its actual
material source shall always be c..."

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different
rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one
twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to
exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by
common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern
atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all
current developments in physical science, theoretical and
experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the
universe. (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those
[Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics,
displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the
special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and
therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest
- call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or
absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION,
INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ."

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
"From the perspective of a critic, Einstein's hypothesis [the clock
paradox] calls into question one of the two principles on which the
theory of relativity is supposedly based - the principle of
relativity. It is not the prediction that one clock will record less
elapsed time than another that most opponents object to, but rather
the claim that this prediction is compatible with relativity theory."

Pentcho Valev

Above-board discussion of Einstein inside Einsteiniana:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to
drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

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."

http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Int.../dp/B0014P9USI
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "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."

Pentcho Valev

Maximum honesty among professors at universities (moving beyond this
maximum would mean the end of the career):

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev

Maximum dishonesty (or stupidity) in Einsteiniana: The Michelson-
Morley experiment gloriously confirms Einstein's 1905 false constant-
speed-of-light postulate:

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://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.youtube.com/watch?v=A2-cRhk76TY&NR=1
David Goodstein: The Michelson-Morley experiment compels us to believe
that the speed of light is the same to all observers regardless of
their state of motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrbRzxEuHFU
Julian Barbour: And if there was no ether, the message seemed clear:
the speed of light was constant and not governed by the laws of motion
that apply on earth.

The most dishonest (or stupid) Einsteinians are usually given a lot of
money:

http://platonia.com/research.html
Julian Barbour: "In 2008 I received funding from the Foundational
Questions Institute (fqxi.org) for my two-year research proposal
Machian Quantum Gravity. The detailed proposal is here (pdf). In
January 2011 I received further research funding for another two-year
period for the project The Nature of Time and the Structure of Space
(pdf). This new project follows on naturally from the first project,
bulding on results obtained in it."

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."

By practicing doublethink John Norton tells the truth sometimes so he
may not be given so much money:

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."

Pentcho Valev