On Apr 21, 12:25 pm, ZerkonXXXX 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_78...merican.h tml
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/memb...tein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
"théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
électromagnétique."

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.l...66aa7af757ca4?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...5008259c28076?

Pentcho Valev