EINSTEINIANS ADOPT THE EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> > For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic terms.
>
> There's no need for relativistic kinematics in discussing the Sagnac effect.
Bravo Roberts Bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! Soon you
will join your brothers John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt who have
officially adopted Newton's emission (ballistic) theory of light
(other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have also adopted the
emission theory but only secretly). You have already discovered the
DISCONTINUUM Roberts Roberts and this is in fact the decisive step
towards Newton's particle model of light:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/40698de7cd7bdfb0?
Tom Roberts, August 25: "IMHO it is the whole concept of "manifold"
that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories. That is,
I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental structure
of the world is not continuous."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dono
> On 29 Nov, 04:20, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
> > > For instance the Sagnac effect is fully xplained in purely ballistic terms.
>
> > There's no need for relativistic kinematics in discussing the Sagnac effect.
Bravo Patchko
Rock Brentwood
> (other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have also adopted the
> emission theory but only secretly).
Conspiratorialism is the shibiboleth of those pushing agendas.
Post Activity
January 202
February 259
March 326
April 369
May 688
June 586
July 692
August 546
September 595
October 671
November 443
Decemer 39
... or the OBVIOUSLY USENET-obsessed addicted nutjob!
Hello?! Get a life. For chrissakes, it's barely even December, and
you've already got nearly 40 articles. Are you so bereft of
communication ability that it takes you 40 tries to say the same thing
over and over?!
"Einstein criminal cult" It ain't even the right categorization. Most
of the things you've taken issue with have absolutely nothing to do
with the distinction between relativistic vs. newtonian Physcs!
I mean, how come it ain't Cartan criminal cult, or
ModernMathematicians criminal cult?
I mean, if you're going to pick a contrived phony non-category to
arbitrarily lump everything into that disagrees with your esteemed
lucid unassailable wisdom, at least have enough of a clue to pick one
that actually FITS something, instead of railroading everything you
don't understand or jibe with into some arbitrary category that nobody
but Pentecho Valev/Androcles/or whatever other testosterone-poisoned
luddite primitive stone-age 20th century oafish persona you're going
under has ever heard of.
Pentcho Valev
> On Nov 30, 4:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (other hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have also adopted the
> > emission theory but only secretly).
>
> Conspiratorialism is the shibiboleth of those pushing agendas.
You may be partially right. I am not sure if in the following two
quotations John Norton and Banesh Hoffmann advertise the emission
theory secretly or quite openly:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com