🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:29 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 21, 12:25 pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in
>fr.sci.astrophysique:
>> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:32:31 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
>> > dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein
>> > 1954: "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."
>>
>> Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of
>> physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
>> material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear
>> as a limited region in space where the field strength / energy density
>> are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)
>
>Einstein's 1954 confession ("...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") can be better
>understood if we consider an extended quotation from his 1950 paper
>and also an explanation by Louis de Broglie:
>
>http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781540289/einstein_on_gravitation_from_scientific_american.html
>Albert Einstein in Scientific American, 1950: "Hence the material
>particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field
>theory.....Maxwell�s equations imply the �Lorentz group,� but the
>Lorentz group does not imply Maxwell�s equations. The Lorentz group
>may indeed be defined independently of Maxwell�s equations as a group
>of linear transformations which LEAVE A PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE
>VELOCITY - THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT - INVARIANT.....Since the theory of
>general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a
>continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot
>play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle
>can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field
>strength or the energy density are particularly high."
>
>http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein_pdf/Einstein_eloge.pdf
>Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute id�e de "grain" se trouvait
>expuls�e de la th�orie de la Lumi�re : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
>"th�orie du champ" o� le rayonnement �tait repr�sent� par une
>r�partition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs �voluant contin�ment
>au cours du temps sans qu'il f�t possible de distinguer, dans les
>domaines spatiaux au sein desquels �voluait le champ lumineux, de tr�s
>petites r�gions singuli�res o� le champ serait tr�s fortement
>concentr� et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
>caract�re � la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumi�re se trouvait
>prendre une forme tr�s pr�cise dans la th�orie de Maxwell o� le champ
>lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
>�lectromagn�tique."
>
>Clearly "field concept" and "continuous structures" "LEAVE A
>PARTICULAR VALUE OF THE VELOCITY - THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT - INVARIANT"
>and it is this falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate that has
>destroyed contemporary physics:
>
>Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
>the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
>theory of gravity is false."
>
>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
>Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
>postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
>that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
>Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
>farce!"
>
>The scientific community should OFFICIALLY reintroduce the dependence
>of the speed of light on the speed of the light source as predicted by
>Newton's emission theory of light:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_frm/thread/56366aa7af757ca4?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/4ec5008259c28076?
>
>Pentcho Valev
>pvalev@yahoo.com

Only a complete idiot would claim that 

1) There is no absolute aether 
and 
2) The speed of all starlight traveling in any particular direction is the same
and independent of its source speed.

Harry Wilson

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
........Religion is the root of all evil...