Bursts of honesty in the Einstein cult often have a lot to do with hype and selling books but still they are worth mentioning:
"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All
these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-
Speculation/dp/0738205257
"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html
Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It is the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..."
https://youtu.be/
kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431
Albert Einstein: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_
Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with
emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.
com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:31
here:
http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116
See more here:
https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)