HOW EINSTEIN USED MAXWELL

According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

You stand on the beach and the wavecrests hit your feet with frequency
F and speed V. You know that

F=V/L

where L is the wavelength - the distance between the crests. Then you
start wading against the waves with speed v. This means that the
wavecrests now hit your feet with speed (V+v); the frequency increases
accordingly:

F'=(V+v)/L ; F'F

The above result (the speed of the wave depends on the speed of the
observer) is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and
Newton's emission theory of light if we find it reasonable to draw an
analogy between ocean waves and light waves. Yet Einsteinians know
that, for light waves, (V+v) is to be replaced by (c+v): a replacement
which, if officially admitted, would mark the end of Einsteiniana (the
speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer). Then
Einsteinians advance the most blatant lie: the wavecrests continue to
hit your feet with CONSTANT speed V while the increase in frequency is
accompanied with an IDIOTIC decrease in wavelength:

F'=V/L' ; L'=LV/(V+v)

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)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 2, 10:37*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
You stand on the beach and the wavecrests hit your feet with frequency
F and speed V. You know that

F=V/L

where L is the wavelength - the distance between the crests. Then you
start wading against the waves with speed v. This means that the
wavecrests now hit your feet with speed (V+v); the frequency increases
accordingly:

F'=(V+v)/L ; F'F

The above result (the speed of the wave depends on the speed of the
observer) is consistent with both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and
Newton's emission theory of light if we find it reasonable to draw an
analogy between ocean waves and light waves. Yet Einsteinians know
that, for light waves, (V+v) is to be replaced by (c+v): a replacement
which, if officially admitted, would mark the end of Einsteiniana (the
speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer). Then
Einsteinians advance the most blatant lie: the wavecrests continue to
hit your feet with CONSTANT speed V while the increase in frequency is
accompanied with an IDIOTIC decrease in wavelength:

F'=V/L' ; L'=LV/(V+v)

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...s/big_bang/ind...
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)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...tivite-restrei...
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...ail/lna40/pgs/...
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."

Pentcho Valev


Very interesting indeed, but what is the pro-Einstenian opinion on
Doppler effect? Later I'll try to find out myself.

On Apr 1, 5:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter)

E's postulate say that (the speed of light IN EMPTY SPACE
is independent of the speed of the emitter).

and, by applying the principle of relativity,

PLUS his method of esynching clocks

inferred that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the observer as well.

He showed that the speed of light would be independent of the
speed of a moving observer AS

On Apr 1, 5:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as MEASURED BY HIM,
using clocks set by his method.

glird

except for "bowshocks" of the observer's spaceboat;
there is no vacuum!

* He showed that the speed of light would be independent of the
speed of a moving observer AS

thus:
most of Russell's paradoxes are just illinguistic;
viz, lack of proper verbal tense:
If I had said that I'll have cut my hair, I'd been lying;
I went to a barber in the next village!

Russell wrote an article in the *Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists*, proposing that
the US should bomb the SU "into the stone age,"
when we first made the H-bomb; refs.:
http://21stcenturysciencetech,com

2. B says "A is false".

thus:
well, if matter is "made of" energy,
then its internal motions must be limited
to the "speed" of light, in hours per parsec,
at relatavistical speeds, especially in one direction.

The travelling twin really is younger.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044

thus:
so, if the lightwave has the "shape of a wave"
-- like, give an example of an actual shape --
what is the need of Newton's God-am corpuscle?

anyway, it is detected as "electrron-voltage," eV;
it is just your interpretation, as its quasi-restmass.

A photon is detected as a quantum of matter. Hence the wave-

thus:
make a prediction of your "theory," bonehead. other than that,
I give "up" with your linguistic progress;
no-one is to be blamed for "English as a one-dot-five language!"
read more »

thus:
snippled ad verbatim ad vomitorium
true, water vapor is the #1 glass-house gas
-- and clouds are hardest to model in simulacra -- but
CO2 is the most effective gas after that incontrovertible factor
of hydrology (ice, water, vapor, plasma below crust and
above ionosphere) in the Anthopocene.

thus:
poor, 47-year-old Minkowski & his silly drek
about phase-space, and then he died --
the great geometer, Minkowski, temporarily ennobled
as a lightcone-head, thanks to SR Fundamentalism (yeah --
let's reify *this* math .-)
please, ask, if
"light slows in a [knewtonian] grav.field,
what does it do with the index of refraction?"
Of couse, if you don't understand Minkowski space time in SR,

thus:
yeah, in a pressurized cabin.
2 eggs.

thus:
the geometrical term, dilation, is perfectly acceptable, because
of the habitual use of Minkowski diagrams;
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!
I do recall reading of some testable stuff,
in the argumentum over Smolin's silly book
(his _Three Toads to QG_ is much less political). so,
what is it that is testabley false --
what's BSRT?
This is provably crap by empirical falsification on a lab bench,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

thus:
so, what about the anti-neutrons, Fitz-whits?

thus:
did it say, burning-up of quarks?... as far as I can tell,
quarks are just the symmetry of rather fundamental particles;
to wit, a trigon can be considered minimal structure
(viz-a-vu Are Buckafka Fullofit .-)

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Ice Age Beauties!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light DOES depend on the
speed of the observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to Maxwell's theory, (1) the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the emitter but (2) it does depend on the speed of the
observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts 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." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."

http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/do...509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."

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."

In 1905 Einstein adopted the former assertion of Maxwell's theory (the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter) and, by
applying the principle of relativity, inferred that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the observer as well.

Einstein could have adopted the latter assertion of Maxwell's theory
(the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer). Then,
by applying the principle of relativity, he would have inferred that
the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter as well.
This would have been a return to Newton's emission theory of light:

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://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."

Pentcho Valev