🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 9, 10:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:18 pm,PentchoValev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 3, 10:35 am, Don Stockbauer <don.stockba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you have something against Einstein?
>
> > He should have explained that "I consider it entirely possible that
> > physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> > structures" meant that the speed of light is inconsistent with the
> > field concept of light (that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
> > false). Rather, the speed of light is consistent with Newton's
> > emission theory:
>
> > 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."
>
> > 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."
>
> Some time ago the intellects at the Perimeter Institute who rightly
> used to call themselves "today's Einsteins" started cooking "souffle
> of particles with gravity" but someone must have explained to them how
> dangerous that was and now it is not clear what they are cooking. Just
> in case, they don't call themselves "today's Einsteins" anymore:
>
> http://maisonneuve.org/index.php?&page_id=12&article_id=2934
> "CRISES + PARADOX = REVOLUTION. WELCOME TO THE PERIMETER INSTITUTE
> WHERE TODAY'S EINSTEINS ARE HARD AT WORK. It's lunchtime at the Black
> Hole Bistro, an in-house restaurant at Waterloo's Perimeter Institute
> for Theoretical Physics. Amid the mounting clatter and chatter,
> conversation at a corner table moves from one universal subject to
> another: from the questionable authenticity of the buffet chicken to
> the union of quantum mechanics and general relativity. The marriage of
> these two theories of the universe-incomplete on their own, but
> incompatible with each other-is the coveted Rosetta stone of physics.
> Quantum theory pertains to things on a very small scale, such as
> particles; it's important for the study of chemistry and atomic
> physics. Relativity pertains to the very large, such as gravity; it's
> important for the study of astronomy and cosmology. A successful
> souffle of particles with gravity, so to speak, would amount to
> nothing less than the "theory of everything"......."

A couple of years ago today's Einsteins at the Perimeter Institute
discovered an important contradiction and, as a result, now there are
two kinds of today's Einsteins: today's continuous Einsteins and
today's discontinuous Einsteins (today's discontinuous Einsteins are
extremely dangerous people):

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/activities/community/einsteinfest/

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."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/53969efe-68f4-4eab-a69e-7c25a0568f6d.pdf
John Rigden: "Einstein's March paper, the only paper that Einstein
himself Called revolutionary, directly challenged the firm beliefs of
all physicists. With compelling evidence in their support, physicists
regarded the nature of light as a closed chapter: light was a
continuous electromagnetic wave. Einstein countered this entrenched
belief with the claim that LIGHT WAS A STREAM OF DISCONTINUOUS,
ISOLATED PARTICLES. The age-old conundrum of continuity vs.
discontinuity was again called into play. Einstein's contemporaries
totally rejected his idea and they even apologized for his having
"gone overboard." In the end, however, Einstein's light particle
became part of the woodwork of physics."

The only problem today's (both continuous and discontinuous) Einsteins
cannot solve is: How can discontinuity of light destroy both
Einstein's theory and the rest of contemporary physics? A tentative
answer can be seen here:

http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com