THE SPEED OF LIGHT PROBLEM IN EINSTEINIANA

Clever Einsteinians know that the OPERA experiment is a small trouble.
The great trouble has always been the MICHELSON-MORLEY experiment:

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.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."

Let us examine carefully Banesh Hoffmann's statement: Without recourse
to contracting lengths etc., the Michelson-Morley experiment
UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms 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 refutes the assumtion that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source. This may be regarded as
a paradigmatic case of experimental confirmation of one assumption and
refutation of another (no experimental verification can be more
straightforward and convincing), so how the ad hoc introduction of
"contracting lengths" can be justified? One should have rational
grounds for the introduction, which implies that "contracting lengths"
have to be at least realistic and non-contradictory. Are they? The
following examples show that that is by no means the case so the
Michelson-Morley experiment should be regarded as a classical
experimental resolution to a theoretical problem: it UNEQUIVOCALLY
confirms 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 refutes the assumtion that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light
postulate).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction.
(...) ...the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the
barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse
dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce
tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait
possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc
réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION
matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999)
LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele
"The Pole in the Barn Paradox. Now we know about length contraction,
we can invent some amusing uses of it. Suppose you want to fit a 20m
pole into a 10m barn. If the pole were moving fast enough, then length
contraction means it would be short enough. (...) Hence in both frames
of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably
shatter when the doors are closed)."

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

Pentcho Valev

Beautiful Dead Science:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."

Beautiful Dead Science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...C0155A9 09EEF
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Beautiful Dead Science destroys ugly opponents:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Selling Beautiful Dead Science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
.........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of
inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

(Note the unavoidable total frustration of anyone pursuing some
rational "line of inquiry" in a schizophrenic situation. This is
perhaps the main reason why Beautiful Dead Science has been so vital
and so beautiful for so long.)

Hymns glorifying Beautiful Dead Science:

http://slidingscalemusic.com/article...ol58no7p56.pdf
When Isaac Newton wrote
The laws that we all quote,
It's now extremely apparent that he
Neglected to consider -- Relativity.
What focused our attention
On the fourth dimension?
(We'd been doing so well with just three.)
'Twas Mister Einstein's brainchild -- Relativity.
And who would think
And who'd forecast
That bodies shrink
When they go fast?
It makes old Isaac's theory
Look weary.

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

Le 02.10.2011 18:01, Pentcho Valev a écrit :
Beautiful Dead Science:

Ugly Pentcho Valev's dead brain. Ugly dishonest, ignorant, arrogant
crank.

Beautiful Dead Science teaches: The youthfulness of the travelling
twin has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack
has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of
the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect
that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the
effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical
accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as
far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
Albert Einstein wrote in 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if
it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as
a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us
what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden
change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer
the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in
a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the
smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change."

Believers fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity".

Beautiful Dead Science teaches: The youthfulness of the travelling
twin is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a
clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the
location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens
to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The
calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice
as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.
This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Now consider the judgments of simultaneity of the
traveling twin, as shown in the spacetime diagram opposite. Since the
traveling twin is moving very rapidly, the traveler's hypersurfaces of
simultaneity are quite tilted. Two hypersurfaces of simultaneity are
shown in the lower part of the diagram for the outward part of the
traveler's journey. These are the hypersurfaces that pass through the
event at which the clock reads 1 day and just before the turn-around
at the traveler's clock time of 2 days. We read from these
hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's
clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the
traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day;
just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2
days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the
end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion,
accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to
earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of
the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of
simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up
dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock
reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home
twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will
judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from
reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home
twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible
for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when
they reunite."

The ecstasy gets uncontrollable: believers tumble to the floor, start
tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev

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."

If "later writers" had "almost universally" ignored the fact that "the
Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission
theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE", that would be
dishonest but still normal in a sense - science has always been
biased. Yet "later writers" in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world do
not just ignore the truth - they frantically teach the lie:

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."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988#
Caltech: The Mechanical Universe - 42 - The Lorentz Transformation
"They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking
for. The interferometer showed that, regardless of the motion of the
observer, the speed of light is the same."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial
frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for
everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate
cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any
physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely
mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples")
can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all
the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified
countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous
section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of
light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...993018,00.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses
expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu
les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est
invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne
se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one
fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's
speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with
respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the
train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light
flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-
Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always
moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light
ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to
measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same
apparent speed! Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in
part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was
that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That
something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time.
This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives,
space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein
conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing that could flex and
change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of
the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe
that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the
constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of
physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the
notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a
swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics.
Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory
of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the
universe works."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians shift allegiance, very carefully:

http://www.sps.ch/artikel/geschichte...physicist_ 2/
Jan Lacki: "Indeed, in his activity, Ritz persisted to build classical
models of the atom and confronted Einstein over relativity and more
generally over the foundations of electrodynamics. Today, the
necessity of the departure from the classical scheme operated by
quantum theory and relativity appears, with hindsight, as evident. But
there were at the time brilliant minds who thought differently. Driven
by the same dissatisfaction with received schemes, they chose a
different road, in a sense equally revolutionary, so it is fair to say
that they too broke with 19th century classicism. Ritz stands high
among them. (...) In the short span of his life, Ritz found also time
to propose his own views on the problems faced then by
electrodynamics. In his last months, he even confronted his
conceptions with Einsteins, and their exchange is very instructive to
anyone willing to penetrate deeply in the roots of our present
physics. (...) Ritz expressed his dissatisfaction with Maxwell-Lorentz
electrodynamics using still other arguments such as those related to
the ambiguity in the definition of the e. m. energy density present in
the ether and also to the difficulty to secure the action-reaction
principle between the latter and matter. I shall not report them here.
Suffice it to say that to Ritz eyes, all these problems were
symptomatic of the basic insufficiency of the field formulation which,
while possibly computationally a handy fiction, had to be given up as
far as foundations and true physical description were concerned.
Rejecting the fields together with the ether, Ritz sketched instead,
in a radical move, an alternative theory where charges were postulated
ab initio to interact through a retarded force. The latter was
conceptually shaped using as guideline the picture of charges emitting
light particles at constant speed, responsible for the interaction.
Since the velocity of these particles depended on that of the emitting
charge, Ritz could preserve Galilean kinematics in opposition to
Einstein who preferred to keep the equations of field electrodynamics
and introduce instead relativized kinematics and relativistic
transformations. By a careful tuning of his force expression (but also
some ad hoc assumptions) Ritz could account for most of the
phenomenology known then. The emissionist stance of Ritz theory should
not be considered as indicating that Ritz was trying to rehabilitate
for real the Newtonian corpuscular view on electromagnetic processes.
His writings show that he was just using emission theory as a
framework where to think an alternative to the received
electrodynamics of his time. Even if his theory was still in a
preliminary stage, Ritz was convinced that it showed that alternative
ways of thinking of electrodynamic processes were possible and well
worth investigating. Ritz confronted his views with Einstein sometimes
in 1909 with the ensuing result that none convinced the other."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 2, 12:01*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Beautiful Dead Science:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."

Beautiful Dead Science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...List&p=27DFC01...
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Beautiful Dead Science destroys ugly opponents:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Selling Beautiful Dead Science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of
inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

(Note the unavoidable total frustration of anyone pursuing some
rational "line of inquiry" in a schizophrenic situation. This is
perhaps the main reason why Beautiful Dead Science has been so vital
and so beautiful for so long.)

Hymns glorifying Beautiful Dead Science:

http://slidingscalemusic.com/article...ol58no7p56.pdf
When Isaac Newton wrote
The laws that we all quote,
It's now extremely apparent that he
Neglected to consider -- Relativity.
What focused our attention
On the fourth dimension?

Well, one is that Newton knew a whole lot about
inertia, and very little about analysis.

So, that's where non Euclidean Geometry,
The Theory of Evolution, Set Theory,
Topology, Goedel's Theorems, and Turing Machines all arose from.

And since his theories of chemistry were all
just run of the mill mining theories,

So, that's also how the discoveries of Radioactivity, DNA,
Lasers, Atomic Clocks, holographics, and nanotechnology
all arose.




(We'd been doing so well with just three.)
'Twas Mister Einstein's brainchild -- Relativity.
And who would think
And who'd forecast
That bodies shrink
When they go fast?
It makes old Isaac's theory
Look weary.

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

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 (...) 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."

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."

http://www.waltherritz.ch/fichiers/fascicule_ritz.pdf
"Mais d'autres difficultés menaçaient dangereusement le monde de la
physique (optique, électrodynamique). Plusieurs physiciens de génie
étaient engagés dans cette lutte (Lorenz, Poincaré, Einstein) et
Walther Ritz fut de leur niveau, apportant des idées qui font de lui
un protagoniste majeur dans cette épopée. Malheureusement, ses travaux
en la matière remontent aux derniers mois de sa vie et il ne fut pas
en mesure d'éprouver et de développer les fruits de sa prodigieuse
imagination physique et mathématique. C'est ce destin douloureux d'un
physicien de génie, ce beau visage d'un savant de haut parage et
apprécié de ses contemporains, que nous entendons rappeler et
présenter à l'occasion des trois journées que nous lui consacrons avec
la Société valaisanne de physique."

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.savs.ch/fr/component/docm...ire-de-la-savs
Walther Ritz, Une contribution valaisanne au développement de la
physique au début du XXe siècle
Catherine Pralong-Fauchère
"Sa dernière année de vie est prolifique du point de vue scientifique.
Sa réputation s'accroît et l'université de Zurich le considère comme
le meilleur parmi 9 candidats possibles pour sa nouvelle chaire de
physique théorique. Cependant, Ritz est déjà trop faible pour
enseigner, et le poste est finalement donné à Einstein. En avril, Ritz
reçoit la visite d'Henri Poincaré qui s'excuse au nom de l'Académie
des Sciences de Paris de ne pas lui avoir attribué 2 ans plus tôt le
Prix Vaillant, promettant que cette injustice serait réparée. Mais
cette aide arrive trop tard. Walther Ritz, atteint de tuberculose,
doit entrer à la clinique de Göttingen à la mi-mai; il y meurt 7
semaines plus tard, le 7 juillet 1909. Il a donc 31 ans."

Pentcho Valev