HOW BEYOND-EINSTEIN CRACKPOTS SHOULD START THEIR THEORIES

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
mentioned would say that SR is not quite right. In fact, string theory
is completely and manifestly covariant -- completely consistent with
SR.

Of course, there are those who foam at the mouth when Mr. A *extends*
the work of Mr. B, taking that to be a sign that "Surely Mr. B must
have been wrong! Mr. A says so!" Anybody who has it out for Mr. B will
tend to foam that way at every opportunity.

PD

PD

On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
about this:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
about this:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 16, 12:40 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD wrote:



On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm"Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf"What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
about this:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...ail/lna40/pgs/...
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

Boy, these arguments are sure getting complex.

"Don Stockbauer" wrote in message
...
: On Nov 16, 12:40 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD wrote:
:
:
:
: On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
:
: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
: "The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
: Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
: developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible
violations
: of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
: theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
: wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient
that
: is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
: that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
: relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
: credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
: "Einstein was not quite right."
:
: I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
: Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
: what Alan Kostelecky says.
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
: mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.
:
: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm"Einstein's Legacy --
: Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
: only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
: dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
: relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
: electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
: of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
: or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
: energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
: mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
: RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
: EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
: PUBLISHING IT."
:
: Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
: WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:
:
: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf"What Can
: We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
: Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
: comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
: of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
: spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
: at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
: everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
: relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
: Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
: preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
: AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
: SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."
:
: As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
: quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
: theory of light:
:
: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
: John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
: an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
: light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
: requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
: absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
: radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
: circumstances."
:
: A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
: about this:
:
: http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...ail/lna40/pgs/...
: Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
: vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
: que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
: n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
: Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
: trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
: raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
: Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
: newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
: opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
: resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
:
: Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
: the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
: the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
: there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
: Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
: concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
: reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
: don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
: what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
: end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
:
: Pentcho Valev
:
: Boy, these arguments are sure getting complex.

Having trouble following them, girl?

On Nov 16, 12:40 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD wrote:





On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ll/2007/1113/2
"The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
"Einstein was not quite right."

I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
what Alan Kostelecky says.

Pentcho Valev

I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm"Einstein's Legacy --
Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
PUBLISHING IT."

Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf"What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
theory of light:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
about this:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...ail/lna40/pgs/...
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

You illustrate my point exactly, Pachinko. You do not understand the
difference between extending a theory and recognizing that a theory is
just wrong. All of the authors you cite pointed out where Einstein
himself recognized the need to extend the *special* theory of
relativity to the *general* theory of relativity.

This is no different than recognzing the need to extend the *special*
classical force of gravity F=mg (for cases near the Earth's surface)
to the *general* classical force of gravity F=GMm/r^2.

Now, Newton himself recognized that F=mg worked *fine* for the special
case, which is why it is labeled the special case, but he also needed
something more *general* which is what produced F=GMm/r^2. Does this
make F=mg wrong for the special cases? No. Does the special case apply
in all circumstances? No.

In exactly the same way, SR works *fine* in the special cases, which
is why it is called *special* relativity. For cases where
gravitational forces are strong, however, the more *general* rule must
be applied. This does not say that SR is *wrong*, only that it applies
in *special* cases, which is precisely how it is used.

PD