THE RISE AND FALL OF EINSTEINIANA

Einstein's relativity born dead:

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."

"Without recourse to contracting lengths" means that the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity if the following consequences of
Einstein's theory are absurd (they are aren't they):

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. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is
sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to
its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end
is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped
IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

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

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity
requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond
its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 4, 8:18*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity born dead:

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."

"Without recourse to contracting lengths" means that the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity if the following consequences of
Einstein's theory are absurd (they are aren't they):

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. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is
sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to
its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end
is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped
IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

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

http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity
requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond
its at-rest length d."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Richard Feynman did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1: "Suppose we
are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the
rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first
equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to
the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light,
as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For
instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going
186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go
86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going
past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light),
one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments
based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of
the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We
shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley
experiment] in detail..."

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that
"if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/
sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/
sec":

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 4, 6:17*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Richard Feynman did not (want to) understand the Michelson-Morley
experiment:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1: "Suppose we
are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the
rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first
equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to
the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light,
as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For
instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going
186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go
86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going
past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light),
one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments
based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of
the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We
shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley
experiment] in detail..."

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed that
"if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/
sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/
sec":

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."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot