Einstein: Get Rid of Fields and Just Have Particles

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."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necesary:

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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 11, 2:41*am, Traveler wrote:
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev

wrote:
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."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necessary:

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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

There is a difference bwtween a stone and light particle, though. One
has mass, the other is pure kinetic energy. Apples and oranges, IMO.

Banesh Hoffmann was an exremely clever relativist ane knew what he was
talking about. The only fact that matters in this case is that the
speed of light varies with the gravitational potential - a fact that
both relativists and anti-relativists accept. However few people are
able, without paying attention to existing camouflage and countless
red herrings, to place the fact in a suitable experimental context,
apply Einstein's equivalence principle and draw the implications.
Banesh Hoffmann was one of those people and what he says above is just
one of the implications.

Pentcho Valev

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:26:15 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Traveler" wrote in message
.. .
| On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
| wrote:
|
|
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."
|
| Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
| fields" is absolutely necesary:
|
| 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. If it
| was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
| Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
| one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
| his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
| prove to be superfluous."
|
| There is a difference bwtween a stone and light particle, though. One
| has mass, the other is pure kinetic energy. Apples and oranges, IMO.

Strange analogy, apples and oranges are both missiles in this context.
Consider this:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

Because the ball travels straight but is curved in the rotating frame,
so too would a photon. The result is the ring laser gyroscope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac/RLG1.gif

Interference fringes occur only when the device is rotating.

Cool, but I don't see how this proves that the speed of a light is
dependent on the speed of the light source. I'm willing to be
educated.

| Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
| speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
| face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
| speed and actual speed.
|
| It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
| *measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
| relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
| that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
| itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
| the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
| is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
| measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
| measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.

Nobody, but nobody, has ever measured the speed of light
from a moving source with a distance/time method. One can
use the doppler method, however.
c = wavelength * frequency, but even then be cautious.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Wave/waves.htm

Pretty cool graphics. I'm impressed. Still not convinced.

| At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
| vacuum is constant.

Why?

I don't want to get into my theory of motion because it will open up a
whole discussion that I can't afford to get into right now. Suffice to
say that the idea that things can move in empty space, all by
themselves, as if by magic, is a fairy tale worse than the flat earth
hypothesis. I am convinced that motion is a causal phenomenon.

Oh wait, you said "believe". The Pope believes his god on a stick
was born of a virgin...
Oh well, not much hope for you as a scientist if you have
irrational faith.

It's all faith, man. It has always been faith. Haven't you read
Descartes? You can't prove that what you sense is real and exists
apart from your mind. Descartes showed that you could be part of a
Matrix-like experiment. All the BS about science not being about faith
is just that, BS. Ultimately, we must have faith in our own
rationality and hunches. May the best religion win in the end. That's
all.

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:26:15 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Traveler" wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:20:20 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev
| | wrote:
| |
| |
|
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."
| |
| | Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
| | fields" is absolutely necesary:
| |
| | 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. If it
| | was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
| | Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
| | one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
| | his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
| | prove to be superfluous."
| |
| | There is a difference bwtween a stone and light particle, though. One
| | has mass, the other is pure kinetic energy. Apples and oranges, IMO.
|
| Strange analogy, apples and oranges are both missiles in this context.
| Consider this:
| http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
|
| Because the ball travels straight but is curved in the rotating frame,
| so too would a photon. The result is the ring laser gyroscope.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...agnac/RLG1.gif
|
| Interference fringes occur only when the device is rotating.
|
| Cool, but I don't see how this proves that the speed of a light is
| dependent on the speed of the light source. I'm willing to be
| educated.

The simplest and most convincing way to understand it is to first
understand Doppler shift and the principle of relativity (the real one,
not Einstein's crap).
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Aether (if it existed like air), would provide a third frame of reference.
But MMX showed no aether, so of the two forms of Doppler shift,
c
f' = f *-----------------
c+v

and c+v
f' = f * ---------------
c
(only one of which is discussed in wackypedia), the correct one for
light has to be the second.
This diagram:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ship2starX.gif
makes no sense (although it would for sound), the moving ship is pushing
the aether along with it.

This does make sense, however:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../star2ship.gif

|
| | Having said that, I disagree with the relativist's claim that the
| | speed of light relative to any observer is constant. This flies in the
| | face of elementary logic. There is a diffference between measured
| | speed and actual speed.
| |
| | It is obvious to me why the relative speed of light in a vacuum is
| | *measured* to be constant by all observers. The reason is that
| | relative c is part and parcel of the working of the very instruments
| | that we use to measure it. This is analogous to use a ruler to measure
| | itself. Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, we always get
| | the same answer. So, whenever a brain-dead relativist insists that c
| | is constant for all observers, we must remind him/her that a
| | measurement is just as much the result of the phenomenon being
| | measured as it is that of the measuring instrument.
|
| Nobody, but nobody, has ever measured the speed of light
| from a moving source with a distance/time method. One can
| use the doppler method, however.
| c = wavelength * frequency, but even then be cautious.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Wave/waves.htm
|
| Pretty cool graphics. I'm impressed. Still not convinced.

The standing wave has exactly the same frequency and wavelength as
the travelling wave beside it, yet the speed of the standing wave is
zero. Hence we must be cautious when talking about speed.




|
| | At any rate, I do believe that the *absolute* speed of light in a
| | vacuum is constant.
|
| Why?
|
| I don't want to get into my theory of motion because it will open up a
| whole discussion that I can't afford to get into right now. Suffice to
| say that the idea that things can move in empty space, all by
| themselves, as if by magic, is a fairy tale worse than the flat earth
| hypothesis. I am convinced that motion is a causal phenomenon.


I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
DO can move in empty space (as if by magic), and so can light,
eclipses are real enough. Occasionally the Moon blocks the light
and the Sun is not seen, and every single night the Earth itself
blocks out sunlight from my day as it places itself between my eyes
and the Sun.
If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
for any discussion.



|
| Oh wait, you said "believe". The Pope believes his god on a stick
| was born of a virgin...
| Oh well, not much hope for you as a scientist if you have
| irrational faith.
|
| It's all faith, man. It has always been faith. Haven't you read
| Descartes? You can't prove that what you sense is real and exists
| apart from your mind. Descartes showed that you could be part of a
| Matrix-like experiment. All the BS about science not being about faith
| is just that, BS. Ultimately, we must have faith in our own
| rationality and hunches. May the best religion win in the end. That's
| all.
|
I'm not relying on Rene Descartes or faith or religion or any kind
of gobbledegook about matrices to know what day and night are.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:44:05 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
DO can move in empty space (as if by magic),

Well, I don't believe in magic. It's worse than irrational faith, IMO.

If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
for any discussion.

Yeah, you're right. See ya around. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

"Traveler" wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:44:05 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
| I'm convinced the Earth and Moon and planets and bullets can and
| DO can move in empty space (as if by magic),
|
| Well, I don't believe in magic. It's worse than irrational faith, IMO.

Oh, yes you do. Magic is defined as anything you don't understand, in
fact it is irrational faith.


|
| If we can't agree on that simple observation then there is no basis
| for any discussion.
|
| Yeah, you're right. See ya around. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
|
| Louis Savain
|
| Rebel Science News:
| http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/

And just to make certain... *plonk*

On Aug 10, 4:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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.
Light conforms to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are
inconsistent with the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore, light
can not conform to the Newtonian motion of particles. Therefore,
Newtonian laws can not explain the null results of the Michaelson
Morley experiment.
A more interesting question: Between Spaceman and Valev, which is
more ignorant? For a long time, I had my money on Spaceman. However,
this latest argument of yours may surpass even Spaceman's arguments.
He at least has repaired cars.

On Aug 10, 4:20*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi....
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."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necesary:

But it doesn't really matter with Gauss-wannabee stooges like
scientoons.
Since neither digital, lasers, fiber optics, CD, nor DVD+rw, nor
even history could exist,
without fields.




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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
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."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necesary:


I suggest the opposite and we should get rid of particles and replace them
by patterns in spacetime.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

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."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's apostle, explains where "getting rid of
fields" is absolutely necesary:


I suggest the opposite and we should get rid of particles and replace
them by patterns in spacetime.

Which "spacetime" should we use for the "patterns"?
meterseconds
milehours
inchminutes
milimeterdays
footyears?
lightyearnanoseconds
etc...
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman