🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 12, 11:03 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Norton is the only Einsteinian who can decipher Einstein's 1954
> confession:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Einstein's 1954 confession: "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."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
> relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
> transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
> Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
> emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
> There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
> classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
> light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
> past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
> and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
> characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
> emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
> emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
> be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
> in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
> ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
> objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
>
> Clearly John Stachel's reaction is just panic and hysteria but John
> Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, knows the truth. Given Norton's
> analysis Einstein's 1954 confession can be modified in the following
> way:
>
> Einstein's 1954 confession (modified): "I consider it entirely
> possible that physics cannot be based upon my [Einstein's] 1905 false
> light postulate. 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."
>
> More recent evidence that John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, does
> know the truth:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "Generalrelativityknits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "Generalrelativitycompletely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well withrelativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> Evidence that all clever Einsteinians now know the truth:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-...
> Einstein,Relativityand AbsoluteSimultaneity(Routledge Studies in
> Contemporary Philosophy)
> "Einstein,Relativityand AbsoluteSimultaneityis an anthology of
> original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
> physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory ofRelativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
> paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
> since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory ofRelativity,
> and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
> relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
> physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
> philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
> publication."
> "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIALRELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
> EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
> QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
> Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
> respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
> time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
> effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
> Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
> radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
> invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
> the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
> purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
> Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
> include a global absolutesimultaneityamong their invariant
> structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
> spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
> picture, there is norelativityofsimultaneityand spacetime is
> uniquely decomposable into space and time."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

How idiotic all this is, and what a roundabout, longwinded way of
saying that the relativity of simultaneity is a constructivist
argument and that the constructivist argument is Einstein's notion of
a "natural" coincidence.  Hey Pentcho, try to understand things
clearly, OK?  Nitwit.