Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.
From: Pentcho Valev on 16 Jul 2010 02:46
"The end of Einstein's relativity" does not mean that Einstein's
relativity is no longer a money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html
"The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is
consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the
view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration."

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

"The end of Einstein's relativity" simply means that Einsteiniana's
priests will exercise their priesthood somewhere else:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Jul 2010 08:20
http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program
ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11]
6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France

Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that
Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once
the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably
gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light":

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".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. 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. (...) 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." (...) An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis. (...)
This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain
all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did
not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its
emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed,
his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission
theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any
lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of
light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be
obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. (...) The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: nuny on 20 Jul 2010 16:56
On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
> does:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
> in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
> principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
> far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
> particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
> And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
> particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
> relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
> local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
> particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
> introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
> obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
>
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
> squared."

Hey, Valev. Take another look at the article.

I wrote them and pointed out the possibility that it might be
misunderstood, as you did.

Nature thoughtfully swapped "light" and "heavy" to eliminate the
possibility of confusion. The sentence now reads:

"Gravity is mercilessly impartial — on Earth, it accelerates heavy
and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared."

This is the second time I've had to write to a publication to
clarify their writing *just* *for* *you*.

You're welcome.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: Pentcho Valev on 21 Jul 2010 00:54
Einstein's children in France used to denounce Poincaré's principle of
diversity of theoretical representations and fiercely defend
Einstein's principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations:

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Generalites/Darrigol%20_amp.pdf
Olivier Darrigol: "Seul Einstein eut l'audace de déclarer que les
divers référentiels inertiels étaient entièrement équivalents, que les
temps et les espaces mesurés dans chacun d'entre eux étaient tous sur
le même pied. Il se persuada d'une exacte validité du principe de
relativité vers 1901, avant d'avoir lu Poincaré. Contrairement à ce
dernier, il accompagnait cette conviction du rejet du concept d'éther,
au nom d'un principe épistémologique d'univocité des représentations
théoriques : à un seul et même phénomène devait correspondre une seule
représentation théorique."

Einstein's relativity has come to an end but Einstein's children have
to eat - they are Poincaré's children now and denounce Einstein's
principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations and fiercely
defend Poincaré's principle of diversity of theoretical
representations:

http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article570
Olivier Darrigol: "L'étonnante diversité des descriptions théoriques
utilisées dans la physique d'hier et d'aujourd'hui est souvent perçue
comme une faiblesse temporaire qu'il faudra corriger dans un état plus
avancé de cette science. A l'opposé de cette attitude, les héritiers
de Maxwell, de Boltzmann et de Poincaré soulignent les vertus
épistémiques d'une diversité des descriptions et considèrent que
décrire est un acte dont la dynamique transcende les objets originels
de la description. Nous proposons de les suivre en explorant la
manière dont les divers modes, niveaux et ordres de description
dépendent des cultures scientifiques dans lesquels ils apparaissent et
affectent notre capacité à résoudre des problèmes concrets, nous
poussent à étudier de nouvelles sortes de phénomènes et suggèrent de
nouveaux objets physiques."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program
ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11]
6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France

Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that
Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once
the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably
gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light":

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".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. 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. (...) 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." (...) An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis. (...)
This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain
all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did
not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its
emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed,
his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission
theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any
lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of
light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be
obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories. (...) The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 Jul 2010 17:40
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 12, 12:18�am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
>> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
>> does:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
>> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
>> in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
>> principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
>> far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
>> particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
>> And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
>> particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
>> relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
>> Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
>> local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
>> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
>> particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
>> introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
>> obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>>
>> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
>> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
>> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
>> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
>> squared."
>>
>> (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
>> is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
>> relativity...")
>>
>> Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
>> assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
>> less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...(a)yahoo.com
>
>Oh, PV, PV, PV.
>Only you would think that if light is subject to gravitational
>deflection (a la Newton), then it must ALSO be ballistic (a la
>Newton).

It is.....proved by an analysis of variable star curves....the only real test
of c+v

>After all, if it exhibits ONE Newtonian property, then it must exhibit
>them ALL, eh?


Henry Wilson...

........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.