EINSTEINIANA IN DESPAIR

http://www.physorg.com/news159444907.html
"In many ways, the standard model of cosmology works very well," Jose
Cembranos tells PhysOrg. "However, there are very basic features that
we just do not know. We have dark energy and dark matter. They dictate
the evolution of late time cosmology. They both together constitute
more than 95 percent of the energy content of the present Universe."
If this is the case, why do we trust the standard model? It can’t
explain such a large portion of the universe....."Many people have
used different modifications of gravity in order to explain dark
matter and even dark energy," he says. "However, usually these
explanations end up being worse than Einstein gravity. Einstein
gravity clearly has problems, but nearly all the other explanations
are worse."

I suggest Einsteinians should start from the very beginning - e.g.
from answering the question: What if Einstein had not "resisted the
temptation to account for the null result [of the Michelson-Morley
experiment] in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar
Newtonian ideas", and had not "introduced as his second postulate
something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of
waves in an ether":

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "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."

Then Einsteinians should consider very carefully signs of guilty
conscience given by Einstein in 1909 and 1954:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Pentcho Valev

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

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:20:29 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
wrote:

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


Only a complete idiot would claim that

1) There is no absolute aether
and
2) The speed of all starlight traveling in any particular direction is the same
and independent of its source speed.

Harry Wilson

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
.........Religion is the root of all evil...