🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 17, 6:15 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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."

Unlike silly Carlo Rovelli, silly Lee Smolin does know the other
Einstein's confessions and can even use them against string theorists,
the silliest members of Einstein criminal cult:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/einsteins-lonely-path/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
Lee Smolin: "One way to understand this story is to say that
theoretical physics has finally caught up to Einstein. While he was
shunned in his Princeton years as he pursued the unified field theory,
the Institute for Advanced Study, where he worked, is now filled with
theorists who search for new variants of unified field theories. It is
indeed a vindication of sorts for Einstein because much of what
today’s string theorists do in practice is play with unified theories
of the kinds that Einstein and his few colleagues invented. The
problem with this picture is that by the end of his life Einstein had
to some extent abandoned his search for a unified field theory. He had
failed to find a version of the theory that did what was most
important to him, which is to explain quantum phenomena in a way that
involved neither measurements nor statistics. In his last years he was
moving on to something even more radical. He proposed giving up the
idea that space and time are continuous. It is fair to say that while
the idea that matter is made of atoms goes back at least to the
Greeks, few before Einstein questioned the smoothness and continuity
of space and time. To one friend, Walter Dallenbäch, he wrote, “The
problem seems to me how one can formulate statements about a
discontinuum without calling on a continuum as an aid; the latter
should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction not
justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to nothing
‘real.’"......Some string theorists will claim to be Einsteinians, and
certainly Einstein would have approved of their search for a
unification of physics. But here is how Brian Greene, in his most
recent book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, describes the state of the
field: “Even today, more than three decades after its initial
articulation, most string practitioners believe we still don’t have a
comprehensive answer to the rudimentary question, What is string
theory? Most researchers feel that our current formulation of string
theory still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the heart of
other major advances.”....I think a sober assessment is that up till
now, almost all of us who work in theoretical physics have failed to
live up to Einstein’s legacy. His demand for a coherent theory of
principle was uncompromising. It has not been reached—not by quantum
theory, not by special or general relativity, not by anything invented
since. Einstein’s moral clarity, his insistence that we should accept
nothing less than a theory that gives a completely coherent account of
individual phenomena, cannot be followed unless we reject almost all
contemporary theoretical physics as insufficient.....Let us be frank
and admit that most of us have neither the courage nor the patience to
emulate Einstein. We should instead honor Einstein by asking whether
we can do anything to ensure that in the future those few who do
follow Einstein’s path, who approach science as uncompromisingly as he
did, have less risk of unemployment, the sort he suffered at the
beginning of his career, and less risk of the marginalization he
endured at the end. If we can do this, if we can make the path easier
for those few who do follow him, we may make possible a revolution in
science that even Einstein failed to achieve."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com