CARLO ROVELLI ABOUT EINSTEIN 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
them: rather, he re-derivedÖ¼them, starting from two "postulates" with
clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."

That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
"facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
"facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 16, 9:05Â*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
them: rather, he re-derivedÖ¼them, starting from two "postulates" with
clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."

That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
"facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
"facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Silly Carlo Rovelli does not know the other Einstein's confessions:

http://www.ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf
Silly Carlo Rovelli: "Einstein believed Maxwell theory as a
fundamental theory and believed the Galilean insight that velocity is
relative and inertial system are equivalent. Merging the two, he found
special relativity. A main result of special relativity is that the
field cannot be regarded as describing vibrations of underlying
matter. The idea of the ether is abandoned, and the field has to be
taken seriously as elementary constituent of reality. This is a major
change from the ontology of Cartesian-Newtonian physics. In the best
description we can give of the physical world, there is a new actor:
the field."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." 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."

Some day silly Carlo Rovelli will realize that "discontinuous
structures" impy that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false whereas
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is
true:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 17, 6:15Â*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:05Â*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
them: rather, he re-derivedÖ¼them, starting from two "postulates" with
clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."

That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
"facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
"facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...0/pgs/4_5..pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Silly Carlo Rovelli does not know the other Einstein's confessions:

http://www.ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf
Silly Carlo Rovelli: "Einstein believed Maxwell theory as a
fundamental theory and believed the Galilean insight that velocity is
relative and inertial system are equivalent. Merging the two, he found
special relativity. A main result of special relativity is that the
field cannot be regarded as describing vibrations of underlying
matter. The idea of the ether is abandoned, and the field has to be
taken seriously as elementary constituent of reality. This is a major
change from the ontology of Cartesian-Newtonian physics. In the best
description we can give of the physical world, there is a new actor:
the field."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." 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."

Some day silly Carlo Rovelli will realize that "discontinuous
structures" impy that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false whereas
the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is
true:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

Unlike silly Carlo Rovelli, silly Lee Smolin does know the other
Einstein's confessions and can even use them against string theorists,
the silliest members of Einstein criminal cult:

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

Silly Carlo Rovelli and silly John Baez seem to plagiarize one
another:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc.../0604045v2.pdf
Silly Carlo Rovelli: "In spite of their empirical success, GR and QM
offer a schizophrenic and confused understanding of the physical
world."

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
Silly John Baez: "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."

Silly John Baez knows what to do:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
Silly John Baez: "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."

Silly Carlo Rovelli would follow silly John Baez but there are
problems with the money silly Carlo Rovelli has wasted:

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/%7Erovelli/vita.pdf
Grants
"Gravitation Quantique `a boucles",
ANR grant: Euro 180,000 (2006 - 2009)
"R´elativit´e G´enerale",
Institut Universitaire de France: Euro 76,225 (2004 - 2009)
"Non perturbative Quantum Gravity",
NSF Grant PHY-9900791: $95,631 (1999 - 2002)
"Non perturbative Quantum Gravity",
NSF Grant PHY-95-15506: $82,000 (1996 -1999)
"Non perturbative Quantum Gravity",
NSF Grant PHY-93-11465: $47,000 (1993 -1995)
"Non perturbative Quantum Gravity",
NSF Grant PHY-90-12099: $63,000 (1990-1993)
Physics Department of the University of Pittsburgh,
Grant PITT 2-11225: $6,670 (1990-1994)
"US-Italy cooperative research: Non perturbative quantum gravity",
NSF Grant: $19,000 (1990-1993)
"US-Argentina cooperative research: General Relativity"
NSF Grant: $11,000 (1992-1993)
INFN Fellowship: Lit. 12,000,000 (1987-1988)
"La forma dello spazio"
INFN Grant: Lit. 5,000,000 (1993)
"La forma dello spazio"
University of Trento Grant: Lit. 4,000,000 (1993)
Research Scholarship "Fondazione della Riccia": Lit. 5,000,000 (1987)

Pentcho Valev