A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 21st 08, 09:16 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old October 21st 08, 03:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default 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  
Old October 21st 08, 06:15 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dwib
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 08, 09:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 08, 10:38 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Peter Webb[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 927
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 08, 03:23 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default 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  
Old October 22nd 08, 03:59 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 08, 10:10 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
moky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 08, 10:17 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old October 23rd 08, 10:33 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:29 AM
THE INCREDIBLE INTELLIGENCE OF EINSTEINIANS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 May 6th 07 10:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.