DIVINE ALBERT AND BIG BROTHER

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed 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 refuted
the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate). Then a century of
brainwashing reversed the situation and nowadays it is indeed
extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to return to the old truth.
Similarly, in Big Brother's world, it is impossible to return to "two
and two make four":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
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?"

Occasionally, clever Einsteinians exercise themselves in doublethink
and do refer to the "old truth" but believers invariably sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity":

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://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.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Int.../dp/B0014P9USI
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 13, 1:52*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed 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 refuted
the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate). Then a century of
brainwashing reversed the situation and nowadays it is indeed
extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to return to the old truth.
Similarly, in Big Brother's world, it is impossible to return to "two
and two make four":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
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?"

Occasionally, clever Einsteinians exercise themselves in doublethink
and do refer to the "old truth" but believers invariably sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity":

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://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.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Int...%C3%A9-EIntrod...
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité": "Si la lumière était un
flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il
n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de
l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une
fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur
et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la
lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport
à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la
vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement
ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se
propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel
elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à
leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND
EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE
CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev


Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup. They
slither while they pass, they make their way across the Universe.

Did Divine Albert lie about the Michelson-Morley experiment? No, of
course not! Divine Albert never lied! "Later writers" (that is,
Einsteiniana's professors) "almost universally" lie about the
Michelson-Morley experiment but Divine Albert was as honest as the
day:

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-J.../dp/0817641432
Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', John Stachel
p. 179: "Are there any common features to Einstein's mentions of the
Michelson-Morley experiment? Yes: Without exception, it is cited as
evidence for the relativity principle, and is never cited as evidence
for the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

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."

Divine Albert lied only once - in 1921 - but in all other cases his
honesty was incomparable:

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

Einsteiniana: Special relativity's "epistemological and ontological
assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false,
perhaps even illogical" so special relativity will be replaced by...
Lorentzian theory!

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its
epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be
questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) In
fact, there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent
to the Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely
Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory."

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009
"The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical,
physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of
Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and
commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications
of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic
quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of
recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and
conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of
the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in
its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view
determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference
intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as
developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how
history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the
accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical
interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee
encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and
non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently
proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal
structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not
be accepted."

Pentcho Valev

The genius:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion
like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the
laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial
differential equations and the notion of field..."

The plagiarist repents at the end of his life:

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."

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."

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."

Pentcho Valev

More about Walther Ritz:

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."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not
exist : he had never existed."

Unpersons in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

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. (...) 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."

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, pp. 275-276:
Jacques Maritain: "Ce qui est absurde, c'est d'imposer au temps réel
et à la simultanéité réelle une relativité qui est le propre des
relations de raison variant avec l'observateur, et de prétendre que la
distance qui sépare deux événements dans le temps, ou deux points dans
l'espace, prise dans ce qui la constitue intrinsèquement, soit ceci ou
cela selon l'observateur, que deux événements soient réellement
simultanés ou réellement successifs à raison du mouvement de
l'observateur ; bref que le changement de mesure provenant du
changement de l'observateur affecte la réalité même de la chose
mesurée."

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 285:
Jacques Maritain: "Il ne reste plus alors qu'à avouer que la théorie
[d'Einstein], si l'on donnait une signification ontologiquement réelle
aux entités qu'elle met en jeu, comporterait des absurdités;
entièrement logique et cohérente comme système hypothético-déductif et
synthèse mathématique des phénomènes, elle n'est pas, malgré les
prétensions de ses partisans, une philosophie de la nature, parce que
le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, sur lequel
elle s'appuie, ne peut pas être ontologiquement vrai."

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

Abysmal ignorance in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l.../einstein.html
Dept. Physics & Astronomy, University of Tennessee: "Einstein's theory
predicts that the direction of light propagation should be changed in
a gravitational field, contrary to the Newtonian predictions. (...)
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that light coming from a
strong gravitational field should have its wavelength shifted to
larger values (what astronomers call a "red shift"), again contary to
Newton's theory."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

What if the speed of light were variable, that is, what if the speed
of photons varied as the speed of any material objects, cannonballs
for instance? Einsteiniana: No problem at all. Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona..._44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10^(-49) grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that
our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that
electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough,
but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second
postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel
at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many
physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's fundamental lie: Both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory
and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

The truth: Both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light VARIES
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.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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with
an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev