|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
The existential question in Einstein zombie world:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the Einsteinians? Quotations that lead to an unambiguous answer: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279 Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein." These writings look beyond his struggles with the unified field theory to "the other possibility [which] leads in my opinion to a renunciation of the space-time continuum..." 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: "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." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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." http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC Joao Magueijo: "The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe works." 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
On Oct 21, 1:16*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In answer to your question, we are still reading our Spam. ;P David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
On Oct 21, 3:16*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the Einsteinians? You mean the people eating at Einstein Bros. Bagels? Dwib |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
A more straightforward answer to the question "Where are the
Einsteinians?": Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) have all abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory, explicitly or implicitly, because they now know that the only reasonable translation of Einstein's 1954 confession: "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." is: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the 1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. 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." Two more relevant quotations: 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 speed of light is c+v." Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
"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." Like many of Einstein's thoughts, remarkably prescient. There has been more and more discussion of the Universe being somehow "digitized", possibly in the form of cellular automata. This would demolish the field concept, Einstein's theory of gravitation, and all physics done since Newton (which is all the rest of contemporary physics). I don't know when Einstein made this observation, but it was certainly before the development of cellular automata theory. He saw far. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
Peter Webb wrote in message
"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." Like many of Einstein's thoughts, remarkably prescient. There has been more and more discussion of the Universe being somehow "digitized", possibly in the form of cellular automata. This would demolish the field concept, Einstein's theory of gravitation, and all physics done since Newton (which is all the rest of contemporary physics). I don't know when Einstein made this observation, but it was certainly before the development of cellular automata theory. He saw far. At least as far as Wolfram's bank account. Dirk Vdm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
Dear Pentcho Valev:
On Oct 22, 1:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: A more straightforward answer to the question "Where are the Einsteinians?": Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) have all abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory, explicitly or implicitly, because they now know that the only reasonable translation of Einstein's 1954 confession: Thank you for reciting the painfully obvious. What you call "Einsteinians", and hanson calls "dingleberries", are people that know that Einstein's "field theory" is still a useful abstraction (like Maxwell's theory), and still encounter people that don't accept that this theory makes successful predictions over a very wide range of the Universe around us. From just above "molecular" to just above (or just at) "solar system", it requires no "fudge factors" or completely separated empirical rules to be applied. When people get beyond this "head in the sand" problem, the uniform labels you like to apply cease to apply. .... 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. Incorrect. It is the result of Maxwell's theories. It is not assumed for all theories. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." Fizeau: c_medium + v c Nothing else has been duplicated in the lab. Your posturing is still empty. David A. Smith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the 1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. 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." How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ? Quotation : " I see we could reach an agreement. How about this: Until the 1970ties there is complete fraud in Einsteiniana. Then a complete change occurs and from the 1970ties on there is complete honesty in Einsteiniana. OK? " Pentcho Valev in http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b9c4332b?hl=fr Laurent |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
On Oct 22, 4:59*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Pentcho Valev: On Oct 22, 1:19*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: A more straightforward answer to the question "Where are the Einsteinians?": Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) have all abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory, explicitly or implicitly, because they now know that the only reasonable translation of Einstein's 1954 confession: Thank you for reciting the painfully obvious. What you call "Einsteinians", and hanson calls "dingleberries", are people that know that Einstein's "field theory" is still a useful abstraction (like Maxwell's theory), and still encounter people that don't accept that this theory makes successful predictions over a very wide range of the Universe around us. Einstein's relativity was only INITIALLY a field theory because his 1905 light postulate is consistent with the continuous-field concept of light and inconsistent with the discontinuous-particle concept of light. Then Einstein discovered that the speed of light is in fact VARIABLE and obeys the discontinuous-particle concept of light, implicitly introduced this into the theory and so obtained an INCONSISTENCY: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD." The problem is that an inconsistency also "makes successful predictions over a very wide range of the Universe around us". Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?
On Oct 23, 11:10*am, moky wrote:
"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the 1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. 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." How do you interpret the fact that Einstein's gravitation has succesfull experimental results, as you admited yourself ? I have just explained this. Because Einstein's theory is an inconsistency. Taken to the extreme, the inconsistency contains "every sentence of the language": W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DESPERATE EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 4th 08 02:17 AM |
IF EINSTEINIANS WERE HONEST | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 8 | July 10th 08 01:12 PM |
EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 28th 08 01:02 AM |
DELIBERATELY AMBIGUOUS EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 11th 07 12:29 AM |
THE INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE OF EINSTEINIANS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 6th 07 10:27 AM |