http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/5876.html
"100 YEARS OF RELATIVITY. Space-Time Structu Einstein and Beyond.
edited by Abhay Ashtekar (Institute for Gravitational Physics and
Geometry, Pennsylvania State University, USA).....Contributions here
include summaries of radical changes in the notions of space and time
that are emerging from quantum field theory in curved space-times
(Ford), string theory (T Banks), loop quantum gravity (A Ashtekar),
quantum cosmology (M Bojowald), discrete approaches (Dowker, Gambini
and Pullin) and twistor theory (R Penrose)."

The French Einsteinian Jean Eisenstaedt should have been invited to
contribute: he has offered the most radical change emerging from
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Other Einsteinians, some of them quite clever, have also hinted at the
essence of the contradiction between Newton's emission theory of light
and Einstein's relativity:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will: "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to
the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the
Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular
theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the
speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be
reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell
of course did not know special relativity.)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

The destruction of human rationality in Einstein zombie world is so
advanced that, after a century of fiercely worshipping Einstein's 1905
false light postulate, Einsteinians can now make careers based on the
true antithesis:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...all~order=page
Light and Relativity, a Previously Unknown Eighteenth-Century
Manuscript by Robert Blair (1748-1828)
Author: Jean Eisenstaedt
Published in: Annals of Science, Volume 62, Issue 3 July 2005 , pages
347-376
"In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from Edinburgh, wrote a
paper that would remain unpublished. In his manuscript, Blair gives a
systematic treatment of the Newtonian kinematics of light, taking into
account in the absolute space of Newton the motion of the light
source, that of the observer, and the velocity of the corpuscles of
light. Two years before, in the context of Newton's corpuscular theory
of light, John Michell had pointed out that the velocity of light
could be measured with the help of refraction experiments. Blair went
a step further and inferred the existence of what we now call the
Doppler effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of
the source and the observer."

In fact, the destruction of human rationality is IRREVERSIBLE: the
world does not care about both Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
and the true antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. This
makes Einstein criminal cult eternal: the theory is obsolete but money
continues flowing into the cult, professors continue teaching, careers
can be based on anything etc. Clausius criminal cult is also eternal:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
"In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a
somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a
relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is
obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase 'Second Law
of Thermodynamics' to denote some counterpart of this law in the
kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics."

Pentcho Valev

Desperate Einsteinians:

http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/montreal.html
From:
Subject: 2008 June 13 - 15, Montreal
Date: 2008 February 02 1:12:24 AM EST
To:
Dear Richard,
On behalf of the Program Committee of the Third International
Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime to be held on June
13-15, 2008 in Montreal I would like to inform you that your proposed
paper has been accepted for poster presentation.
Like in the other conferences the Program Committee cannot send
referee's reports, but in the biennial spacetime conferences all
effort has been made to make the reviewing process as objective as
possible - each extended abstract has been independently reviewed by
six or in case of discrepancies by seven reviewers.
All information about the conference is available at the conference
website
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
I look forward to meeting you in Montreal,
Vesselin Petkov
Science College, Concordia University
1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8
Tel.: 514-848-2424 ext 2572
Fax: 514-848-2573

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/

Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"There is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did
introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered
special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one
concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!)
did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a
development from relativity—the discovery of the implication that E =
mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But
the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's
equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human!....That
is exactly what we do today in teaching special relativity. Antique
postulates that are not of anything but historical interest to genuine
physicists are presented to students as "Special Relativity." Some
books do better than others in warning students how seemingly
impossible the second postulate is; but all have the students working
out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g. relativity of
simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course the second
postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of texts
(Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's second
paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs to be
done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski. I feel that the
time has come to relegate the "two postulates" to the dustbin of
history..."

Pentcho Valev

Some Einsteinians, e.g. John Stachel, have already extracted all
possible money from Einstein's idiocies and are now ready to adopt
Newton's emission theory of light. Others, e.g. Tom Roberts, think
more money could be extracted from Einstein's idiocies:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "As a theory of principle (see above), the theory of
relativity provides important guidelines in the search for such a
satisfactory theory. Einstein anticipated the ultimate construction of
"a complete worldview that is in accord with the principle of
relativity."[25] In the meantime, the theory offered clues to the
construction of such a worldview. One clue concerns the structure of
electromagnetic radiation. Not only is the theory compatible with an
emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances. He maintained that "the next phase in the development
of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light, which may be
regarded as a sort of fusion of the undulatory and emission theories
of light."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...cc9ce0b836800?
On Dec 6 2007, 4:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote
in sci.physics.relativity:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible with other
theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full experimental
record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not relativity.

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians are fiecely moving beyond Einstein but in the end they
will just have to replace Einstein's 1905 false light postulate with
its true antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
theory of light. At the following conference:

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime
June 13-15, 2008, Concordia University

John Norton is going to inform Einstein zombie world about the
following discovery:

http://www.spacetimecenter.org/confe...008/Norton.pdf
John D. Norton (Department of History and Philosophy of Science,
University of Pittsburgh): "One Ritz-like emission theory, attributed
by Pauli to Ritz, proves to be a natural extension of the Galilean
covariant part of Maxwell’s theory that happens also to accommodate
the magnet and conductor thought experiment."

The selfsame John Norton has also discovered this:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

So the magnet and conductor thought experiment is FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE,
and the Michelson-Morley experiment is FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE, and the
Pound-Rebka experiment is FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Strange isn't it. At least Einstein zombie world will not sing its
hymns so fiercely anymo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"

http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3
"DIVINE EINSTEIN"

Pentcho Valev

On May 19, 12:34 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
:
: http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
: http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3
: "DIVINE EINSTEIN"

Here, for your collection.

"ALBERT EINSTEIN RAP"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-4gynsqCEss

"Einstein Rap at Pi Day in S.F."
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VGrR_wPvfd4

"Einsteisenberg Rap Battle"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ksE0HSKDCkc

On May 19, 1:50*am, " wrote:
On May 19, 12:34 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
: "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
:
: http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
: http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3
: "DIVINE EINSTEIN"

Here, for your collection.

"ALBERT EINSTEIN RAP" http://youtube.com/watch?v=-4gynsqCEss

"Einstein Rap at Pi Day in S.F." http://youtube.com/watch?v=VGrR_wPvfd4

"Einsteisenberg Rap Battle" http://youtube.com/watch?v=ksE0HSKDCkc

Yes that is the music of Einstein zombie world. Mo

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rHDjSD...eature=related

The (forgotten) music of another world:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WkvFZpOhFjA

Pentcho Valev