EINSTEIN'S REVOLUTION: IRONY OR TRAGEDY?

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Relat.../dp/0199275831
Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective
Harvey R. Brown
"It is the ultimate irony that the paper which would spell the demise
of the luminiferous ether had as one of its central postulates what
Wolfgang Pauli aptly called the 'true essence of the old aether point
of view'. (...) The most remarkable feature of Einstein's light
postulate is the fact that it seems at first sight antithetical to his
own revolutionary notion of the light quantum. In 1905 it was far from
clear to Einstein what sort of thing the light quantum precisely is,
but it must have seemed closer in nature to a bullet than a wave. The
fact that nonetheless Einstein adopted the LP over an emission theory
of light is testimony to the sureness of his physical intuition in the
midst of blooming, buzzing confusion."

In 1954 Einstein realized that the "ultimate irony" had turned into
ultimate tragedy:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "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."

If there is doubt as to whether the statement:

"physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures"

is equivalent to the statement:

"physics cannot be based on the assumption that the speed of photons,
unlike the speed of bullets, is independent of the speed of the light
source"

here are a few 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://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."
[Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some
imperfections in the text!]

Pentcho Valev

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."

There are two facts hinted at in the above texts which, in a world
different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, would make the
respective theory (special relativity) extremely suspicious:

1. Originally (in 1887) the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible
with the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of
the light source (as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light)
and INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS
INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE LIGHT SOURCE (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate).

2. After a century of brainwashing no one wants to hear about the
original truth - people just know that the Michelson-Morley experiment
has gloriously confirmed Einstein's light postulate and that's it.

Note how artfully Norton, while being faithful to the true story,
still does not give any sign that something might be amiss.

Pentcho Valev

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
Albert Einstein 1912 (in letters to Ehrenfest): "I was not annoyed in
the least by your article. On the contrary. Such considerations are
quite familiar to me from the pre-relativistic time. I certainly knew
that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is
something quite independent of the relativity postulate; and I
considered what would be more probable, the principle of the constancy
of c, as was demanded by Maxwell's equations, or the constancy of c,
exclusively for an observer sitting at the light source. (...) I
believe that there are quite simple experiments to test Ritz'
conception, which, incidentally, was also mine before rel. theory."

The problem is that Maxwell's equations demanded that the speed of
light be VARIABLE - it varied with the speed of the observer:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could
answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected,
he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which
light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his
surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always
traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich
Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the
formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results
described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based
Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows
light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a
sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Pentcho Valev

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not
because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it
seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications.
By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence
against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the
mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more
reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific
concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source,
like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with
Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source
even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster
than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its
velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and
simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law
for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth.
Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that
only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a
theory to show that it entails even one or another of these
consequences...." (...) Einstein's theory garnered prestigious
supporters such as Planck, Sommerfeld, and Wien, who endorsed and
protected it from the attacks of others, while Ritz's theory acquired
no supporters. Ehrenfest and Tolman called for unambiguous empirical
evidence to test Ritz's emission theory, but neither spent any effort
in extending it, and soon they both epoused Einstein's theory
unreservedly, especially following de Sitter's work. For a few years
immediately following its publication, Ritz's theory may have seemed
to be an odd and complicated curiosity, in comparison to the leading
approaches in electrodynamics. Ritz, the one man who had both the
skill and the motivation to advance it, had died."

Nowadays it is psychologically impossible to test, experimentally, the
statements "the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
source" (c'=c+v) and "the speed of light does not depend on the speed
of the light source" (Einstein's 1905 light postulate, c'=c). The
reason is that in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world experiments are
double-edged - if they confirm c'=c+v, they at the same time
GLORIOUSLY confirm c'=c:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Still people not affected by the schizophrenia could choose between
c'=c+v and c'=c. If, as the observer starts moving towards the light
source and wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the frequency
and the speed of light (relative to the observer) increase while the
wavelength remains constant, then c'=c+v predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light is TRUE and c'=c, Einstein's 1905 light
postulate, FALSE:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.astrosurf.com/quasar95/exposes/redshift.pdf
"Appliqué à la lumière, cet effet Doppler-Fizeau engendre un décalage
des fréquences émises par une source en mouvement par rapport à un
observateur. Comment expliquer ce phénomène ? Par un exemple simple :
Une personne est debout sur le rivage d'un bord de la mer. Des vagues
lui arrivent sur les pieds toutes les dix secondes. La personne
marche, puis court en direction du large (là où se forment les
vagues). Elle va à la rencontre des vagues, celles-ci l'atteignent
avec une fréquence plus élevée (par exemple toutes les huit secondes,
puis toutes les cinq secondes). La personne fait alors demi-tour et
marche puis court en direction de la plage. Les vagues l'atteignent
avec une fréquence moins élevée, par exemple toutes les douze, puis
quinze secondes. Cette petite démonstration s'applique à une onde
physique, comme un son, ou ici les vagues sur l'océan pour une
meilleure compréhension. Elle peut être extrapolée à une onde
lumineuse, en considérant que le sommet d'une vague est le point
d'amplitude maximale de l'onde lumineuse."

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

If, as the observer starts moving towards the light source and
wavecrests start hitting him more frequently, the frequency and the
wavelength change while the speed of light (relative to the observer)
remains constant, then c'=c+v predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light is FALSE and c'=c, Einstein's 1905 light postulate, TRUE:

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

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...l/SpecRel.html
David M. Harrison: "Einstein "Explains" the Michelson-Morley
Experiment. When Einstein was 16, in 1895, he asked himself an
interesting question:
"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c I should observe such
a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at
rest. However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis
of experience or according to [the theory of electricity and
magnetism]. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively
clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything
would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer
who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise, should
the first observer know, i.e.. be able to determine, that he is in a
state of uniform motion?" -- As later written by Einstein in
"Autobiographical Notes", in Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein:
Philosopher-Scientist.
He continued to work on this question for 10 years with the mixture of
concentration and determination that characterised much of his work.
He published his answer in 1905:
"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of [relative] motion of
the emitting body .... The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special
properties." -- Annalen Physik 17 (1905).
Put another way, the speed of light is 1,079,253,000 km/hr with
respect to all observers. As we shall see, this one statement is
equivalent to all of the Special Theory of Relativity, and everything
else is just a consequence. Notice that the statement also explains
the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, although
the evidence is not certain it seems quite likely that in 1905
Einstein was unaware of the experiment..."

In the spirit of George Orwell's "1984", the most relevant slogan in
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is:

LIE IS TRUTH

Einstein's 1905 light postulate by no means "explains the null result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment". Rather, the experiment
contradicts the light postulate and therefore refutes "all of the
Special Theory of 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."

Pentcho Valev