On 5 Sept, 09:38, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein tries to save NORMALITY but fails:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#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."

Einstein is sorry for the LUNACY he has introduced:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.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."

Hypocrisy combined with lunacy in Einstein zombie world:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep...tart:int=2&-C=
Lee Smolin: "One way to understand this story is to say that
theoretical physics has finally caught up to Einstein. While he was
shunned in his Princeton years as he pursued the unified field theory,
the Institute for Advanced Study, where he worked, is now filled with
theorists who search for new variants of unified field theories. It is
indeed a vindication of sorts for Einstein because much of what
today's string theorists do in practice is play with unified theories
of the kinds that Einstein and his few colleagues invented. The
problem with this picture is that by the end of his life Einstein had
to some extent abandoned his search for a unified field theory. He had
failed to find a version of the theory that did what was most
important to him, which is to explain quantum phenomena in a way that
involved neither measurements nor statistics. In his last years he was
moving on to something even more radical. He proposed giving up the
idea that space and time are continuous. It is fair to say that while
the idea that matter is made of atoms goes back at least to the
Greeks, few before Einstein questioned the smoothness and continuity
of space and time. To one friend, Walter Dallenbäch, he wrote, "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.'"......Some string theorists will claim to be Einsteinians, and
certainly Einstein would have approved of their search for a
unification of physics. But here is how Brian Greene, in his most
recent book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, describes the state of the
field: "Even today, more than three decades after its initial
articulation, most string practitioners believe we still don't have a
comprehensive answer to the rudimentary question, What is string
theory? Most researchers feel that our current formulation of string
theory still lacks the kind of core principle we find at the heart of
other major advances."....I think a sober assessment is that up till
now, almost all of us who work in theoretical physics have failed to
live up to Einstein's legacy. His demand for a coherent theory of
principle was uncompromising. It has not been reached-not by quantum
theory, not by special or general relativity, not by anything invented
since. Einstein's moral clarity, his insistence that we should accept
nothing less than a theory that gives a completely coherent account of
individual phenomena, cannot be followed unless we reject almost all
contemporary theoretical physics as insufficient.....Let us be frank
and admit that most of us have neither the courage nor the patience to
emulate Einstein. We should instead honor Einstein by asking whether
we can do anything to ensure that in the future those few who do
follow Einstein's path, who approach science as uncompromisingly as he
did, have less risk of unemployment, the sort he suffered at the
beginning of his career, and less risk of the marginalization he
endured at the end. If we can do this, if we can make the path easier
for those few who do follow him, we may make possible a revolution in
science that even Einstein failed to achieve."

Pentcho Valev