EINSTEIN EXERCISING HIMSELF IN CRIMESTOP

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

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

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein
has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The
speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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://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."

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."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's
book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while
writing it.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

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

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein
has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The
speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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://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."

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."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's
book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while
writing it.

Pentcho Valev


Thanks, Pentcho, now that awful nonsense that Einstein started can finally
be abolished, what with my new findings presented to all in Usenet!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

That physics (and science in general) is in "terminal decline" is a
well established fact and the Cambridge professor John Barrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow

would refer you to one of the reasons, that is, Barrow would tell you
that "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science" (by
procrusteanizing scientific rationality into conformity with the
idiotic consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate):

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/new...physics-2.html
"PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE? In CEER's latest report, published 11
August 2006 and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Professor
Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson show that the decline in physics
as student numbers fall and university departments shut is more
serious than is generally appreciated."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...e-easier-exams
"Pupils of today struggle with science questions of the 60s. Evidence
shows standards are slipping as comparison is made of exam papers
through the decades. There has been a "catastrophic slippage" in
standards of science taught in schools, leaving children with a
superficial understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, according
to the Royal Society of Chemistry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2009031...z?rel=hp_picks
"The most striking thing about the way we talk about science these
days is just how little we talk about it at all. No large fundamental
question focuses our attention on the adventure of discovery; no grand
public project stirs our reflection on the perils of technological
control. Nothing for decades has approached the imaginative impact of
relativity or the double helix, the moon landing or the bomb."

http://mneaquitaine.wordpress.com/20...scientifiques/
"L'Occident face à la crise des vocations scientifiques. Le mal
s'accroît, mais le diagnostic s'affine. Les pays développés, qui
souffrent, sans exception, d'une désaffection des jeunes pour les
filières scientifiques, pointent du doigt la façon dont les sciences
sont aujourd'hui enseignées. Trop de théorie, pas assez de pratique ;
des enseignements qui n'invitent pas au questionnement......tandis que
les sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des
jeunes Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)."

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives...077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux ». (...) Cette
perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du
ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier
l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à
faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas
d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison
étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en
riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente
débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences
comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation
est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente
la confusion »."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
That physics (and science in general) is in "terminal decline" is a
well established fact and the Cambridge professor John Barrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow

would refer you to one of the reasons, that is, Barrow would tell you
that "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science" (by
procrusteanizing scientific rationality into conformity with the
idiotic consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate):

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/new...physics-2.html
"PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE? In CEER's latest report, published 11
August 2006 and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Professor
Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson show that the decline in physics
as student numbers fall and university departments shut is more
serious than is generally appreciated."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...e-easier-exams
"Pupils of today struggle with science questions of the 60s. Evidence
shows standards are slipping as comparison is made of exam papers
through the decades. There has been a "catastrophic slippage" in
standards of science taught in schools, leaving children with a
superficial understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, according
to the Royal Society of Chemistry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...tion.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2009031...z?rel=hp_picks
"The most striking thing about the way we talk about science these
days is just how little we talk about it at all. No large fundamental
question focuses our attention on the adventure of discovery; no grand
public project stirs our reflection on the perils of technological
control. Nothing for decades has approached the imaginative impact of
relativity or the double helix, the moon landing or the bomb."

http://mneaquitaine.wordpress.com/20...scientifiques/
"L'Occident face à la crise des vocations scientifiques. Le mal
s'accroît, mais le diagnostic s'affine. Les pays développés, qui
souffrent, sans exception, d'une désaffection des jeunes pour les
filières scientifiques, pointent du doigt la façon dont les sciences
sont aujourd'hui enseignées. Trop de théorie, pas assez de pratique ;
des enseignements qui n'invitent pas au questionnement......tandis que
les sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des
jeunes Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)."

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives...077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux ». (...) Cette
perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du
ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier
l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à
faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas
d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison
étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en
riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente
débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences
comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation
est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente
la confusion »."

Pentcho Valev


AB: If I will be so honoured by Prof. Barrow to be asked to give a talk in
Cambridge, on my new ideas in physics, that not only outs the rubbish that
is einsteinian physics, and replaces that with one consistent with that of
Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, in the line of da Vinci, Galileo,
Kepler et al, I will most happily and proudly accept the honour. It will be
a most fitting place, to give such a talk.
Arindam Banerjee.

John Norton exercising himself in crimestop:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodie...age/index.html
John Norton: "There are occasions in which our best science requires
us to dismiss some fact of experience as an illusion. All our ordinary
experience of water and air is that they are perfectly continuous
fluids. Yet our best science tells us that is an illusion. On a
sufficiently fine scale both have the granularity of molecules. The
appearance of continuity is an illusion. But it is one that is readily
explicable by the extremely small size of atoms. Again, light appears
to us to propagate instantaneously in ordinary experience. Yet it is
essential for relativity theory that it have a finite speed of
propagation. So we dismiss the appearance of instantaneous propagation
as an illusion. Once again, it is readily explicable by the extremely
short propagation times needed, which are well below those we can
discern in ordinary processes. Now consider the passage of time. Is
there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to
dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a
negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we
would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time
have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our
vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Norton has
stopped short is:

"Passage of time is an illusion" is a consequence of Einstein's 1905
false light postulate."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

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

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein
has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The
speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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://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."

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."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's
book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while
writing it.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#twentytwo
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
self-education:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
moving towards the light source, the wavelength of light shifts but
the speed of light remains constant", "Einsteiniana says that, in
accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long pole can
safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained himself in not
seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It
was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation.
The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as
"two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed
also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make
the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of
the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as
intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

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

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein
has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The
speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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://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."

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."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's
book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while
writing it.

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 31, 7:25*am, John Jones wrote:


"Einsteinercise"

Brilliant!


Marshall

Crimestop combined with doublethink:

THE TRUTH: When the observer starts moving towards the wave source,
the speed of the wave relative to him varies with his speed:

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."

THE LIE (always one leap ahead of the truth): When the observer starts
moving towards the wave source, the wavelength varies with his speed
while the speed of the wave relative to him remains constant (this
gloriously saves Einstein's relativity):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

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)."

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."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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 wrote:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#twentytwo
George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He
presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is
flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained
himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that
contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of
reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for
instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond
his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind,
an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at
the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity
was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

George Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's
self-education:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself
with propositions - "Einsteiniana says that, when the observer starts
moving towards the light source, the wavelength of light shifts but
the speed of light remains constant", "Einsteiniana says that, in
accordance with Einstein's 1905 light postulate, a 80m long pole can
safely be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained himself in not
seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It
was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation.
The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as
"two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed
also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make
the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of
the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as
intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev

Marshall wrote:
On Mar 31, 7:25 am, John Jones wrote:


"Einsteinercise"

Brilliant!


Marshall