🚀 go-pugleaf

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.htmLee Smolin: "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?