On Nov 19, 4:11 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

One can still find sites where Einstein criminals explicitly compare
Divine Albert with Jesus Christ:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
Einstein - Relativity and Beyond
John Moffat, Howard Burton, Lee Smolin, John Stachel

I suspect all those sites will soon disappear and the world will learn
that the same criminals have been anti-Einsteinians all along:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htmLeeSmolin: "Quantum
theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have
appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of
relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the
laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the
speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the
source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory
are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_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."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "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."

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"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."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
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."

Pentcho Valev

Don't like Einstein much, do you?