ONLY ONE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Some_E...ories_of_Light
Some Emission Theories of Light, by Richard Chace Tolman
Physical Review, August 1912, 35 (2): 136-143
"THE Einstein theory of relativity assumes as its second postulate,
that the velocity of light is independent of the relative motion of
the source of light and the observer. It has been suggested in a
number of places that all the apparent paradoxes of the Einstein
theory might be avoided and at the same time the principle of the
relativity of motion retained, if an alternative postulate were true
that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source are
additive. Relativity theories based on such a postulate may well be
called emission theories. (...) Emission theories differ, however, in
their assumptions as to the velocity of light after its reflection
from a mirror."

The fact that emission theories differ "in their assumptions as to the
velocity of light after its reflection from a mirror" deserves
discussion but not in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world where this
fact immediately becomes a red herring deviating the attention from
the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. So
I suggest that, until the era of Postscientism is over,
antirelativists stick to the following tentative assumption:

Photons behave like absolutely elastic cannonballs.

It is easy to see that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka
experiments are compatible with the assumption.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Some_E...ories_of_Light
| Some Emission Theories of Light, by Richard Chace Tolman
| Physical Review, August 1912, 35 (2): 136-143
| "THE Einstein theory of relativity assumes as its second postulate,
| that the velocity of light is independent of the relative motion of
| the source of light and the observer. It has been suggested in a
| number of places that all the apparent paradoxes of the Einstein
| theory might be avoided and at the same time the principle of the
| relativity of motion retained, if an alternative postulate were true
| that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source are
| additive. Relativity theories based on such a postulate may well be
| called emission theories. (...) Emission theories differ, however, in
| their assumptions as to the velocity of light after its reflection
| from a mirror."
|
| The fact that emission theories differ "in their assumptions as to the
| velocity of light after its reflection from a mirror" deserves
| discussion but not in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world where this
| fact immediately becomes a red herring deviating the attention from
| the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. So
| I suggest that, until the era of Postscientism is over,
| antirelativists stick to the following tentative assumption:
|
| Photons behave like absolutely elastic cannonballs.
|
| It is easy to see that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka
| experiments are compatible with the assumption.
|
| Pentcho Valev
|
|
Photons behave like absolutely elastic SPINNING raindrops.
It is easy to see how something spinning exhibits wavelike
behaviour on the time axis.
It is easy to see how water droplets pass through slits in
coffee filter paper and emerge as water droplets.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that
physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Does "physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on
continuous structures" imply that physics should have been based on
Newton's emission theory of light, not on Einstein's special
relativity? Clues:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a
discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of
Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous
conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
"In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain
sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to
"varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy
of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special
relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected
to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other
varying constant theories."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that
the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the
whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this
postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The
speed of light is c+v."

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

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain
fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission
theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I
believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics
will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the
oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted. (...)
If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would
seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from
their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE
THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these
sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
INADMISSIBLE."

Pentcho Valev

Herbert Dingle and Bryan Wallace suggesting that all the absurdities
of the Einstein theory might be avoided "if an alternative postulate
were true that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source
are additive":

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://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
"According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein
in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B,
in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is
the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the
theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from
the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many
applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in
practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is
sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have
been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from
the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible
effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between
the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the
question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that
the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

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. To continue to use the theory without discrimination,
therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of
nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable
scale... (...) 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. It
remains to be determined, by a valid experimental determination of THE
TRUE RELATION OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT TO THAT OF ITS SOURCE, which of
these alternatives is the true one. In the meantime, the fiction of
"space-time" as an objective element of nature, and the associated
pseudo-concepts such as "time-dilation", that violate "saving common
sense", should be discharged from physics and philosophy..."

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...9-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) 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. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Bryan Wallace wrote
"The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the
text!]

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| Herbert Dingle and Bryan Wallace suggesting that all the absurdities
| of the Einstein theory might be avoided "if an alternative postulate
| were true that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source
| are additive":

No matter how much you rail against crackpottery, three important
aspects of emission fact emerge.
1) Discovery of the cause of variation of magnitude of stars.
2) Inertial navigation by the Sagnac effect. There is no GPS
remote from Earth.
3) Speed of interplanetary communications. It takes 70 minutes
to communicate with Saturn. A light accelerator is possible but
requires R&D. One can start with revolving mirrors.

On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:08:32 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Some_E...ories_of_Light
| Some Emission Theories of Light, by Richard Chace Tolman
| Physical Review, August 1912, 35 (2): 136-143
| "THE Einstein theory of relativity assumes as its second postulate,
| that the velocity of light is independent of the relative motion of
| the source of light and the observer. It has been suggested in a
| number of places that all the apparent paradoxes of the Einstein
| theory might be avoided and at the same time the principle of the
| relativity of motion retained, if an alternative postulate were true
| that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source are
| additive. Relativity theories based on such a postulate may well be
| called emission theories. (...) Emission theories differ, however, in
| their assumptions as to the velocity of light after its reflection
| from a mirror."
|
| The fact that emission theories differ "in their assumptions as to the
| velocity of light after its reflection from a mirror" deserves
| discussion but not in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world where this
| fact immediately becomes a red herring deviating the attention from
| the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. So
| I suggest that, until the era of Postscientism is over,
| antirelativists stick to the following tentative assumption:
|
| Photons behave like absolutely elastic cannonballs.
|
| It is easy to see that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka
| experiments are compatible with the assumption.
|
| Pentcho Valev
|
|
Photons behave like absolutely elastic SPINNING raindrops.
It is easy to see how something spinning exhibits wavelike
behaviour on the time axis.
It is easy to see how water droplets pass through slits in
coffee filter paper and emerge as water droplets.

Very good. Top marks.
Message rating: 1 gisse.

"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 1 May 2011 12:08:32 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
| | http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Some_E...ories_of_Light
| | Some Emission Theories of Light, by Richard Chace Tolman
| | Physical Review, August 1912, 35 (2): 136-143
| | "THE Einstein theory of relativity assumes as its second postulate,
| | that the velocity of light is independent of the relative motion of
| | the source of light and the observer. It has been suggested in a
| | number of places that all the apparent paradoxes of the Einstein
| | theory might be avoided and at the same time the principle of the
| | relativity of motion retained, if an alternative postulate were true
| | that the velocity of light and the velocity of the source are
| | additive. Relativity theories based on such a postulate may well be
| | called emission theories. (...) Emission theories differ, however, in
| | their assumptions as to the velocity of light after its reflection
| | from a mirror."
| |
| | The fact that emission theories differ "in their assumptions as to the
| | velocity of light after its reflection from a mirror" deserves
| | discussion but not in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world where this
| | fact immediately becomes a red herring deviating the attention from
| | the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate. So
| | I suggest that, until the era of Postscientism is over,
| | antirelativists stick to the following tentative assumption:
| |
| | Photons behave like absolutely elastic cannonballs.
| |
| | It is easy to see that both the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka
| | experiments are compatible with the assumption.
| |
| | Pentcho Valev
| |
| |
| Photons behave like absolutely elastic SPINNING raindrops.
| It is easy to see how something spinning exhibits wavelike
| behaviour on the time axis.
| It is easy to see how water droplets pass through slits in
| coffee filter paper and emerge as water droplets.
|
| Very good. Top marks.
| Message rating: 1 gisse.
|
Better than headless crocodiles.
Message rating: 2 plat-billed duckypussies.

Since Divine Albert had to abandon the emission theory, then this
theory must be very very wrong, even if we don't know why exactly
Divine Albert abandoned it (education in the era of Postscientism):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...way/index.html
John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's
modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the
velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but
with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is
called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the
theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity.
Einstein later recalled that the theory he developed was essentially
that developed later by Walther Ritz in 1908. In Ritz's theory - and
thus probably also in Einstein's theory - all electrodynamic action,
not just light, propagated in a vacuum at c with respect to the
actions source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We
can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many."

One might be inclined to expect that Einsteinians would never sing
praises to Newton's emission theory of light, just as sycophants in
Big Brother's world would never sing praises to 2+2=4:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

That would be a wrong expectation. Einsteiniana's strategy is
different. If maximum destruction of human rationality is to be
reached and maintained, 2+2=4 must be publicly worshipped from time to
time as if the ban on it had never existed:

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.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context."

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, " 'What Song the Syrens
Sang' : How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John
Stachel, Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la
théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines
historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel,
Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les
principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que
le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

http://www.arte.tv/fr/La-relativite-...ve/856858.html
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Michell est persuadé de l'universalité de la
gravitation et que la lumière doit, comme tout autre corpuscule, y
être soumise. Il en déduit, en cette fin du XVIIIe siècle, qu'un
corpuscule lumineux, émis par une étoile animée d'une vitesse
constante, va être petit à petit freiné et sa vitesse diminuée. À tel
point que, si l'étoile est très massive, le corpuscule, telle une
pierre jetée en l'air, peut s'arrêter dans sa course et retomber sur
l'étoile. Aussi invente-t-il ces objets étranges que Pierre-Simon
Laplace nommera «corps obscurs» (car leur lumière ne peut nous en
parvenir) et qui s'apparentent aux trous noirs. En 1801, s'appuyant
sur ces résultats vulgarisés par Laplace, l'astronome allemand Georg
von Soldner en déduira qu'un rayon lumineux peut être dévié de sa
course s'il passe près d'un corps pesant. Ses résultats ne sont
aucunement différents de ceux d'Einstein, qui calculera le même effet
en 1911."

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=10745
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un siècle après son émergence, la théorie de
la relativité est encore bien mal comprise - et pas seulement par les
profanes ! Le vocable même qui la désigne (« relativité ») est fort
inadéquat. Ses énoncés courants abondent en maladresses sémantiques,
et donc en confusions épistémologiques. Paradoxe majeur, cette
théorie, présentée comme un sommet de la modernité scientifique, garde
de nombreux traits primitifs. Or, de récentes recherches montrent
éloquemment qu'un sérieux approfondissement de ses concepts et de ses
formulations peut résulter du retour à ses origines, avant même
Einstein. Déjà le principe de relativité se comprend mieux si on le
détache de la forme nouvelle qu'il prit après Lorentz, Poincaré et
Einstein, pour le ressourcer chez Galilée et Descartes. Mais surtout,
l'examen de nombreux travaux des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, injustement
oubliés, met en évidence une théorie particulaire de la lumière, en
germe dans la physique newtonienne, qui ouvre des voies d'approche
négligées vers la théorie moderne. Ces considérations contrebalancent
utilement le point de vue ondulatoire traditionnel, et allègent ses
difficultés."

http://www.passiondulivre.com/livre-...ravitation.htm
"Étrangement, personne n'est jamais vraiment allé voir ce que l'on en
pensait «avant», avant Einstein, avant Poincaré, avant Maxwell.
Pourtant, quelques savants austères et ignorés, John Michell, Robert
Blair et d'autres encore, s'y sont intéressés, de très près.
Newtoniens impénitents, ces «philosophes de la nature» ont tout
simplement traité la lumière comme faite de vulgaires particules
matérielles : des «corpuscules lumineux». Mais ce sont gens sérieux et
ils se sont basés sur leurs Classiques, Galilée, Newton et ses
Principia où déjà l'on trouve des idées intéressantes. À la fin du
XVIIIe siècle, au siècle des Lumières (si bien nommé en
l'occurrence !), en Angleterre, en Écosse, en Prusse et même à Paris,
une véritable balistique de la lumière sous-tend silencieusement la
théorie de l'émission, avatar de la théorie corpusculaire de la
lumière de Newton. Lus à la lumière (!) des théories aujourd'hui
acceptées, les résultats ne sont pas minces. (...) Les «relativités»
d'Einstein, cinématique einsteinienne et théorie de la gravitation,
ont la triste réputation d'être difficiles... Ne remettent-elles pas
en cause des notions familières ? Leur «refonte» est d'autant plus
nécessaire. Cette préhistoire en est un nouvel acte qui offre un autre
chemin vers ces théories délicates. Mais ce chemin, aussi long soit-
il, est un raccourci, qu'il est temps, cent ans après «la» relativité
d'Einstein, de découvrir et d'explorer."

Pentcho Valev

Absurdity (rather, idiocy) that would have been avoided if Lorentz and
FitzGerald had not ignored Newton's emission theory of light:

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/p...lativity5.html
"We've arrived at a paradox. The rule that we've described for
translating velocities in one reference frame to another frame,
"common sense relativity", is not consistent with Einstein's second
postulate that the speed of light is the same in all inertial
reference frames. There are only two ways for this to be true. Either
distances are different from one inertial frame to the next, time is
different from one frame to the next. In fact, both of these things
are true. The first effect we call "length contraction" while we call
the second effect "time dilation". Length contraction is sometimes
referred to as Lorentz contraction, or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.
The mathematical formula for describing it was arrived at by Lorentz
and Fitzgerald before Einstein, but it took Einstein to fully
understand its significance and embed it into a complete theory of
relativity. The principle is this:
The length of an object in a frame in which it is moving is shorter
than the length of the same object in a frame in which it's at rest.
(...) This contraction is not an illusion. Any accurate experiment we
might devise to measure the length of this ruler as it moves past us
will reveal a shorter length than the object has at rest. The ruler
doesn't just look shorter when it's moving. It IS shorter!"

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIy...related&search
Einsteinians trap long trains inside short tunnels

http://master-p6.obspm.fr/relat/anne...atTD1_1011.pdf
Université Pierre et Marie Curie
"La situation est la suivante : un perchiste se saisit d'une perche
mesurant 10 m, puis il s'élance en direction d'une grange mesurant 5 m
de profondeur et percée de deux portes A et B (cf fig. 0.1). On
suppose que le perchiste se déplace à une vitesse constante v telle
que gamma = 2. Le paradoxe est le suivant : le perchiste a une perche
de 10 m et voit une grange de longueur 5/gamma = 2,5 m, donc la perche
ne rentre pas. De son côté, la grange voit une perche de longueur 10/
gamma = 5 m, donc la perche rentre. Finalement, est-ce que la perche
rentre dans la grange ? Que se passe-t-il si on ferme la porte en B?
(...) ...lorsque le bout P atteint la porte fermée en B, l'autre bout
de la barre n'est pas encore au courant et la perche se contracte très
fortement, jusqu'à ce que l'information que B est fermée se propage,
via des ondes acoustiques, le long de la barre jusqu'en P."

http://inac.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...343/t343_1.pdf
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji: "Chez Poincaré, la contraction des longueurs
et la dilatation des durées sont réelles.....Chez Einstein, la
contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées ne sont pas
réelles: elles sont le résultat d'un effet de perspective."

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/acti...ein_Damour.pdf
Thibault Damour: "La "contraction des longueurs" avait, avant
Einstein, été considérée par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik Lorentz.
Cependant, ils la considéraient comme un effet "réel" de contraction
dans l' "espace absolu", alors que pour Einstein il s'agit d'un effet
de perspective spatio-temporelle. Einstein fut le premier à penser et
prédire (dès juin 1905) que l'autre effet notable de perspective
spatio-temporelle, usuellement appelé « dilatation du temps »,
impliquait une conséquence observable nouvelle : si deux horloges de
même fabrication se trouvent initialement (t = 0) au même point A d'un
référentiel d'inertie, et que l'on déplace l'une d'entre elles, à
vitesse finie v (constante en module), le long d'une courbe fermée
jusqu'à ce qu'elle revienne au point A, l'horloge « voyageuse »
marquera un temps plus court (...) que le temps marqué par l'horloge «
sédentaire »."

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "We should keep in mind, as an analogy, that the
"twin paradox" has often been used as a proof of the inconsistency of
the special relativistic time-dilation. We know, however, that it
corresponds to a real effect..."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce
possible?"

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/La_relativite.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un objet de longueur L0 dans son propre
référentiel sera, dans un autre référentiel, repéré différemment et se
verra attribuer une longueur inférieure L. Mais, comme dans le cas
spatial, c'est là un effet de parallaxe : ce n'est que si les axes
spatiotemporels de l'objet coincident avec ceux de la règle utilisée
que l'on peut affirmer mesurer la longueur propre de l'objet. La
dilatation des temps s'explique de façon analogue. Ces effets sont
donc parfaitement "réels" tout en ne concernant que des
"apparences"."

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."

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

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/0307...s030728-3.html
Philip Ball in the journal NATU "A Brazilian physicist has resolved
a paradox thrown up by Einstein's theory of relativity. According to
the theory, objects travelling at close to the speed of light appear
to get shorter when viewed by stationary observers. But from the
viewpoint of those on the moving object, the observers - who are
receding at close to the speed of light - appear shortened instead.
Other dimensions remain the same. When these notions are applied to a
submarine just below the water's surface, an inconsistency seems to
arise. Spectators on an anchored ship would see the submarine shrink
as it moves parallel to the surface at near-light speed. The resulting
density increase would sink the vessel. The submarine crew would see
the opposite: water rushing past them would contract and get denser,
making the submarine more buoyant and causing it to rise. Relativity
insists that both viewpoints are equally valid - so does the sub sink
or swim? It sinks, says George Matsas of the State University of São
Paulo in Brazil. He has used the theory of general relativity to
include the effect of the different reference frames on the space-
distorting force of gravity. Although the surrounding water does look
denser to submariners, they also experience gravity as being stronger,
creating a net downward force. This explanation is not the first. In
1989 US physicist James Supplee tackled the problem using Einstein's
earlier and simpler theory of special relativity, which explains how
movement at close to light speed can distort space. But special
relativity, unlike general relativity, does not include the space-
bending effects of gravity. Supplee also concluded that the submarine
sinks - but he had to factor gravity into his calculations rather
artificially. He argued that the sub sinks as it accelerates because
relativity distorts the shape of the sea floor, bending it upwards
below the sub."

Pentcho Valev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"Emission theory (also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of
light) was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity,
explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Emission
theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
be conclusively discredited by most scientists. The name most often
associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his Corpuscular
theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot
bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object,
and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed
of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

If the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Newton's
emission theory of light, why did "later writers almost universally
use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity"?

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."

Is there any connection between "this [emission] theory is considered
to be conclusively discredited by most scientists" and "later writers
almost universally use it [the Michelson-Morley experiment] as support
for the light postulate of special relativity"? How can a blatant lie
last for a century? We all live in the era of Postscientism?

Needless to say, John Norton is lying about Einstein being honest in
this particular case. Einstein is the originator of the-Michelson-
Morley-experiment-supports-Einstein's-1905-constant-speed-of-light-
postulate fraud:

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

Pentcho Valev