🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 16, 9:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
> Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
> entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
> Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
> Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
> the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
> that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
> interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
> already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
> the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
> them: rather, he re-derivedּthem, starting from two "postulates" with
> clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
> universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."
>
> That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
> "facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
> simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
> "facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/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."

Silly Carlo Rovelli does not know the other Einstein's confessions:

http://www.ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf
Silly Carlo Rovelli: "Einstein believed Maxwell theory as a
fundamental theory and believed the Galilean insight that velocity is
relative and inertial system are equivalent. Merging the two, he found
special relativity. A main result of special relativity is that the
field cannot be regarded as describing vibrations of underlying
matter. The idea of the ether is abandoned, and the field has to be
taken seriously as elementary constituent of reality. This is a major
change from the ontology of Cartesian-Newtonian physics. In the best
description we can give of the physical world, there is a new actor:
the field."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."

Some day silly Carlo Rovelli will realize that "discontinuous
structures" impy that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false whereas
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is
true:

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
pvalev@yahoo.com