http://physics.about.com/b/a/007549.htm
From Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Happy Birthday, Relativity!
"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore eliminated any need for the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave."

Andrew Zimmerman Jones should have written:

"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore remained faithful to the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave, with variable speed c'=c+v, where v is the
relative speed of the light source and the observer."

If Andrew Zimmerman Jones had written so, he would have been
consistent with Banesh Hoffmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://physics.about.com/b/a/007549.htm
From Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Happy Birthday, Relativity!
"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore eliminated any need for the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave."

Andrew Zimmerman Jones should have written:

"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore remained faithful to the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave, with variable speed c'=c+v, where v is the
relative speed of the light source and the observer."

If Andrew Zimmerman Jones had written so, he would have been
consistent with Banesh Hoffmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(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."

One can easily choose between Einstein's aether theory and the
emission theory of light by answering the following question:

Is there a valid argument leading from the PREMISE:

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in
accordance with Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)

towards the CONCLUSION:

In the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light varies
with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

The following textbook analysis, although somewhat confusing, could be
helpful:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://physics.about.com/b/a/007549.htm
From Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Happy Birthday, Relativity!
"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore eliminated any need for the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave."

Andrew Zimmerman Jones should have written:

"By assuming that the speed of light is a constant, he [Einstein]
therefore remained faithful to the aether description. His previous
work (also in 1905) in explaining the photoelectric effect had already
proposed the photon theory of light, which allowed light to move as a
particle instead of a wave, with variable speed c'=c+v, where v is the
relative speed of the light source and the observer."

If Andrew Zimmerman Jones had written so, he would have been
consistent with Banesh Hoffmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(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."

One can easily choose between Einstein's aether theory and the
emission theory of light by answering the following question:

Is there a valid argument leading from the PREMISE:

The speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in
accordance with Einstein's equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)

towards the CONCLUSION:

In the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light varies
with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v.

The following textbook analysis, although somewhat confusing, could be
helpful:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult trying to resolve (or camouflage)
the problem could also use their own confessions:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of
reference].....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .]
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed
with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant
the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity
suggests that he did mean so."

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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000225/
"What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there
is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The
constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect
homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a
special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same
velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to
general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of
light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of
light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was
the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general
relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes
through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein
stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the
general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity
of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have
already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that
since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of
the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even
suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant.
This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a
paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with
the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of
light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's
calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the
influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The
result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also
known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."

Pentcho Valev

While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
most physicists":

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.......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.....Here I shall end my conjectures on how Einstein
arrived at SRT. To briefly recapitulate, I believe that the first
principle, the relativity principle, recapitulates his struggles with
the mechanical ether concept which led finally to the first crucial
liberation of his thought-the abandonment of the ether. The second
principle, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
recapitulates his struggle, once he had definitely opted for the
relativity principle, first to evade the Maxwell-Lorentz theory by an
emission theory; then to isolate what was still valid in the Maxwell
Lorentz theory after giving up the ether concept and abandoning
absolute faith in the wave theory of light. The struggle to reconcile
the two principles could only end successfully after the second great
liberation of his thought: the relativisation of the concept of time.
The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and
emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a
synthesis of the two. This synthesis was finally achieved, over twenty
years later, in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
most physicists, but ironically, never to that of Einstein."

There has never been and will never be anything like Einstein criminal
cult.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
: fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
: that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
: incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: most physicists":
:
: 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.......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.....Here I shall end my conjectures on how Einstein
: arrived at SRT. To briefly recapitulate, I believe that the first
: principle, the relativity principle, recapitulates his struggles with
: the mechanical ether concept which led finally to the first crucial
: liberation of his thought-the abandonment of the ether. The second
: principle, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
: recapitulates his struggle, once he had definitely opted for the
: relativity principle, first to evade the Maxwell-Lorentz theory by an
: emission theory; then to isolate what was still valid in the Maxwell
: Lorentz theory after giving up the ether concept and abandoning
: absolute faith in the wave theory of light. The struggle to reconcile
: the two principles could only end successfully after the second great
: liberation of his thought: the relativisation of the concept of time.
: The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and
: emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a
: synthesis of the two. This synthesis was finally achieved, over twenty
: years later, in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: most physicists, but ironically, never to that of Einstein."
:
: There has never been and will never be anything like Einstein criminal
: cult.
:
: Pentcho Valev

Err... yes there has.

To echo Newton's words
This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Ptolemy developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

Androcles wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
: fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
: that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
: incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: most physicists":
:
: 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.......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.....Here I shall end my conjectures on how Einstein
: arrived at SRT. To briefly recapitulate, I believe that the first
: principle, the relativity principle, recapitulates his struggles with
: the mechanical ether concept which led finally to the first crucial
: liberation of his thought-the abandonment of the ether. The second
: principle, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
: recapitulates his struggle, once he had definitely opted for the
: relativity principle, first to evade the Maxwell-Lorentz theory by an
: emission theory; then to isolate what was still valid in the Maxwell
: Lorentz theory after giving up the ether concept and abandoning
: absolute faith in the wave theory of light. The struggle to reconcile
: the two principles could only end successfully after the second great
: liberation of his thought: the relativisation of the concept of time.
: The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and
: emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a
: synthesis of the two. This synthesis was finally achieved, over twenty
: years later, in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: most physicists, but ironically, never to that of Einstein."
:
: There has never been and will never be anything like Einstein criminal
: cult.
:
: Pentcho Valev

Err... yes there has.

To echo Newton's words
This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.
Ptolemy developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and it
is a crime against science and scholarship.

Einstein criminal cult is not just fraud. It is delberate attack
against human rationality. Consider the following text for instance:

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."

Does Stephen Hawking really believe that the Michelson-Morley
experiment disproves the emission theory of light and more precisely
its implication that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential? No, he could not be so silly. And he surely knows what
other hypnotists, including Einstein, have said:

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."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."

Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22: "In the second place our
result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, THE
LAW OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN VACUO, WHICH
CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SPECIAL
THEORY OF RELATIVITY and to which we have already frequently referred,
CANNOT CLAIM ANY UNLIMITED VALIDITY. A curvature of rays of light can
only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
position."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS
ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a
gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0
( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Androcles wrote:
: "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: :
: : While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
: : fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
: : that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
: : incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: : most physicists":
: :
: : 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.......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.....Here I shall end my conjectures on how Einstein
: : arrived at SRT. To briefly recapitulate, I believe that the first
: : principle, the relativity principle, recapitulates his struggles with
: : the mechanical ether concept which led finally to the first crucial
: : liberation of his thought-the abandonment of the ether. The second
: : principle, the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,
: : recapitulates his struggle, once he had definitely opted for the
: : relativity principle, first to evade the Maxwell-Lorentz theory by an
: : emission theory; then to isolate what was still valid in the Maxwell
: : Lorentz theory after giving up the ether concept and abandoning
: : absolute faith in the wave theory of light. The struggle to reconcile
: : the two principles could only end successfully after the second great
: : liberation of his thought: the relativisation of the concept of time.
: : The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and
: : emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a
: : synthesis of the two. This synthesis was finally achieved, over twenty
: : years later, in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
: : most physicists, but ironically, never to that of Einstein."
: :
: : There has never been and will never be anything like Einstein criminal
: : cult.
: :
: : Pentcho Valev
:
: Err... yes there has.
:
: To echo Newton's words
: This is the story of a scientific crime. I mean a crime committed by a
: scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the
ethics
: and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
: fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and
history.
: Ptolemy developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
: were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the
theories, he
: deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
: claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
: scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud,
and it
: is a crime against science and scholarship.
:
: Einstein criminal cult is not just fraud. It is delberate attack
: against human rationality.

Ptolemy was a fraud. His cult was called the Catholic church led by
a bloke named "the Pope" (a kind of mediaeval Tom Roberts) and they
are still attacking human rationality to this day, muttering about stars
over Bethlehem and virgin births. See, three blokes navigating across
a desert using an astrolabe isn't quite the same thing as "following a
star".

Rationalists regard the Matthew account (of the magi) as fiction; Catholics
insist that it is a narrative of fact, supporting their interpretation with
the evidence of all manuscripts and versions, and patristic citations.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm

No difference between Catholicism and Relativism, both are fraudulently
criminal.
It won't be much longer before Tom Roberts' acolytes are passing the plate.


Consider the following text for instance:
:
: 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."
:
: Does Stephen Hawking really believe that the Michelson-Morley
: experiment disproves the emission theory of light and more precisely
: its implication that the speed of light varies with the gravitational
: potential? No, he could not be so silly.


Oh yes he could. Hawking declined a pint one evening at Sussex U just
outside Brighton when it was my shout. For any beer guzzling young
Englishman to do that is the epitome of silliness, virtually unheard of.
Even Jesus Christ turned water into wine.
The reason he did so, of course, was to escape the conversation
because I had him by the balls. He could talk just fine back then, too.
His motor neurone disease is a progressive one, he didn't always sound
like a darlek. Anyway, he went to Oxford along with the Monty Python
team and everybody knows they were deliberately silly to make money.
They'd never be silly enough to decline a pint, though.


: And he surely knows what
: other hypnotists, including Einstein, have said:
:
: 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."


MMX is just the forerunner of Sagnac, modern gyroscopes make
everyday use of it. Sagnac is MMX when it isn't rotating.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

If name dropping means anything then Wolfgang Pauli recognised
MMX was compatible with the emission axiom. The PoR is not
a theory, it is an axiom.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm



: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can
: We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
: Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
: comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
: of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
: spacetime presumed in special relativity.


He's wrong. The supposed constancy of the speed of light is a direct
consequence of "we establish by definition that the time required
by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from
B to A", which is about as silly a definition as the Norwegian Blue parrot
pining for the fjords. Any sane person can figure out it takes a different
time to send a signal to Saturn than it does to return a signal from
Saturn to Earth, the Earth moves. Galileo said so.



: There is a special velocity
: at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
: everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
: relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
: Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
: preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
: AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
: SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."
:
: Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22: "In the second place our
: result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, THE
: LAW OF THE CONSTANCY OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN VACUO, WHICH
: CONSTITUTES ONE OF THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE SPECIAL
: THEORY OF RELATIVITY and to which we have already frequently referred,
: CANNOT CLAIM ANY UNLIMITED VALIDITY. A curvature of rays of light can
: only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with
: position."
:
: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, IT IS
: ABSOLUTELY TRUE THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT in a
: gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
: well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
: not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
: of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
: in: "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,"
: Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
: development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
: widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
: of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in
: section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
: of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0
: ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the
: point where the speed of light c0 is measured."
:
: Pentcho Valev

You can find the parrot sketch at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s
featuring Tom Roberts as the shopkeeper.

Putting silliness aside, there are some very nice REAL mysteries
to solve using the emission axiom.
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/s...ic2796300.shtm

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:20:55 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:


While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
most physicists":

Einstein's second postulate claims that the speed of all starlight in the
universe is miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to be precisely 'c' wrt
little planet earth.
His theory based on this postulate has survived to this day simply because
every good christian and jew realizes that it fully supports the age old belief
that the Earth has special status and really IS the centre of the universe.
I would wager that every relativist on this NG is also a regular church goer.

The Big Bang theory belongs in the same category as SR.





www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:20:55 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
most physicists":

Einstein's second postulate claims that the speed of all starlight in the
universe is miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to be precisely 'c' wrt
little planet earth.

It says nothing of the sort. There is NO 'adjustment' of the speed of light
... it is 'c'. That you think there are fairies involved says a lot about
you, but nothing about SR.

His theory based on this postulate has survived to this day simply because
every good christian and jew realizes that it fully supports the age old
belief
that the Earth has special status and really IS the centre of the
universe.
I would wager that every relativist on this NG is also a regular church
goer.
The Big Bang theory belongs in the same category as SR.

No .. it is because there is no experimental evidence to suggest otherwise.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:54:25 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:20:55 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


While some hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult (e.g. Tom Roberts) are
fighting heroically against the emission theory of light, others claim
that Einstein never abandoned it and that now this theory is
incorporated "in the quantum theory of fields, to the satisfaction of
most physicists":

Einstein's second postulate claims that the speed of all starlight in the
universe is miraculously adjusted (by the fairies) to be precisely 'c' wrt
little planet earth.

It says nothing of the sort. There is NO 'adjustment' of the speed of light
.. it is 'c'. That you think there are fairies involved says a lot about
you, but nothing about SR.

His theory based on this postulate has survived to this day simply because
every good christian and jew realizes that it fully supports the age old
belief
that the Earth has special status and really IS the centre of the
universe.
I would wager that every relativist on this NG is also a regular church
goer.
The Big Bang theory belongs in the same category as SR.

No .. it is because there is no experimental evidence to suggest otherwise.

Do you go to a church every day or once a week?



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.