🚀 go-pugleaf

> > On 25 Aug, 04:07, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> > sci.physics:
>
> > > Frankly, I doubt that is a useful path. IMHO it is the whole concept of
> > > "manifold" that is at most risk of becoming obsolete in future theories.
> > > That is, I strongly suspect that at the Planck scale the fundamental
> > > structure of the world is not continuous.
>
> > > Tom Roberts
>
> > Tom Roberts was the last hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who, on
> > seeing Einstein's confession
>
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> > 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."
>
> > stuck his head in the sand, exposed other parts of his body and
> > remained so until the danger was over. Other hypnotists accepted the
> > inevitable without looking for sand. Now no hypnotist in Einstein
> > criminal cult is looking for sand anymore, not even Tom Roberts. The
> > inevitable is inevitable.
>
> > "The fundamental structure of the world is not continuous" implies
> > that, as far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle
> > model of light is correct and the speed of photons obeys the equations
>
> > c'=c+v ; c'=c(1+V/c^2)
>
> > where c is the initial speed of photons relative to the light source,
> > v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer (in the
> > absence of a gravitational field), V is the gravitational potential
> > difference between the point of emission and the point of measurement.
>
> > Another important confession:
>
> > 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."
>
> Now it is clear why Einstein raised the following problem but could
> not move any further:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> Albert Einstein: "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'."
>
> Einstein did know "how one can formulate statements about a
> discontinuum" but also knew what this discontinuum would lead to:
>
> 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."

See the reason why, at the end of his life, Einstein said: "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." The reason: by
building his theory upon the FIELD concept, Einstein made the emission
theory of light, that is, the only theory that correctly says how the
speed of photons depends on the relative speed of the light source and
the observer, "inadmissible":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
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 of light,
electricity and magnetism to be a field theory, these sorts of
objections would render an emission theory of light inadmissible."

Pentcho Valev