🚀 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."

Pentcho Valev