How Einstein destroyed both Newton and Maxwell

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."

In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the prediction of
Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is variable and
obeys the equation:

c' = c + v (1)

where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is
the speed of the light source relative to the observer. The experiment
refuted the prediction of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory according
to which the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation:

c' = c + v (2)

where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
speed of the observer relative to the aether.

The former prediction is correct, the latter is wrong, but both are
PHYSICALLY reasonable. Einstein's 1905 principle of constancy of the
speed is a truncated form of equations (1) and (2):

c' = c (3)

and is PHYSICALLY absurd.

Guilty conscience forced Einstein to think of Newton's emission theory
of light all along:

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."

At the end of his life (people often become exceptionally honest at
the end of their lives) Einstein even confessed what he had done:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 26, 8:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
[snip crap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie


"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf
Hitler
in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so 'colossal' that no
one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously'."


It didn't work for Adolf either.


--Mike Jr

On Aug 26, 5:19*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

[snip crap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie

"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf
Hitler
in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so 'colossal' that no
one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously'."

It didn't work for Adolf either.

--Mike Jr

But it did work for Einsteinians that John Norton calls "later
writers":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey ****ing stooopid - SR is Newton (less gravitation) rederived given
Maxwell.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Aug 26, 7:39*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

[snip crap]

Hey ****ing stooopid - SR is Newton (less gravitation) rederived given
Maxwell.

Of course. The dream of Albert Einstein and John Stachel:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

John Stachel is right. Einstein did not have to choose between wave
and emission theories - he simply killed both of them and then
theoretical physics died. John Stachel finds this very funny:

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 26, 1:17 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the prediction of
Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is variable and
obeys the equation:

c' = c + v (1)

where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is
the speed of the light source relative to the observer. The experiment
refuted the prediction of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory according
to which the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation:

c' = c + v (2)

where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the
speed of the observer relative to the aether.

The former prediction is correct, the latter is wrong, but both are
PHYSICALLY reasonable. Einstein's 1905 principle of constancy of the
speed is a truncated form of equations (1) and (2):

c' = c (3)

and is PHYSICALLY absurd.

Guilty conscience forced Einstein to think of Newton's emission theory
of light all along:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...essence-of-rad...
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."

At the end of his life (people often become exceptionally honest at
the end of their lives) Einstein even confessed what he had done:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
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."

Pentcho Valev


So is no a field, exactly what i said, and without reading Eainstein

And by the way, fields are models not reality, in reality something
else happens

On Aug 26, 8:19 am, "Mike Jr." wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie

"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf
Hitler
in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so 'colossal' that no
one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously'."

“Mein Kampf” contains no lies. It was a book written by a prisoner
with nothing better to do. Basically, the author whoever he was
(Hitler claimed he did it) was talking about nothing. There might be
subtle hints of what he was talking about, but the central theme was
washed down with garbage. It was a very, very f*cking boring book.
The analogy is to encode a piece of information with broadband. The
information is basically lost in a hay stack. Without the key, you
can interpret that book any way you like. Of course, you would choose
to do so to justify what you were told about World War Two. The only
thing that the history books got it right was which side won the war
and appropriately “built” the history to suit the current political
agenda. shrug




It didn't work for Adolf either.

Yes, it never worked for Hitler. The enigma machine was already
compromised two years before Hitler came into power. The British had
already plotted the downfall of the Weimar Republic with or without
Hitler. On top of that, Hitler was so naïve that he did not know the
allies were all out to get him in the first place until several years
well into the war. The subtle hint was, of course, the Soviet
invasion of Poland.

If Hitler knew about the compromise of the enigma machine and purged
the traitor Admiral Canaris (equivalent of the head of CIA), the war
would be very much different. You are way too harsh in your judgment
just like embracing the SR crap. shrug

On Aug 26, 10:39 am, Uncle Al wrote:

Hey ****ing stooopid - SR is Newton (less gravitation) rederived given
Maxwell.

This is not true, and it reflects your ignorance. shrug

First of all, SR is an interpretation to the Lorentz transform that
manifests the absurdity of the twin’s paradox. Secondly, consider two
beam of emitted electron in parallel to each other. So, you can play
God by traveling at a speed to witness the two beams attract or
repel. Give me a break. Actually, the problem is more subtle than I
have raised. shrug

On 27 Aug, 07:04, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 26, 8:19 am, "Mike Jr." wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie

"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf
Hitler
in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so 'colossal' that no
one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously'."

“Mein Kampf” contains no lies. *It was a book written by a prisoner
with nothing better to do. *Basically, the author whoever he was
(Hitler claimed he did it) was talking about nothing. *There might be
subtle hints of what he was talking about, but the central theme was
washed down with garbage. *It was a very, very f*cking boring book.
The analogy is to encode a piece of information with broadband. *The
information is basically lost in a hay stack. *Without the key, you
can interpret that book any way you like. *Of course, you would choose
to do so to justify what you were told about World War Two. *The only
thing that the history books got it right was which side won the war
and appropriately “built” the history to suit the current political
agenda. *shrug

It didn't work for Adolf either.

Yes, it never worked for Hitler. *The enigma machine was already
compromised two years before Hitler came into power. *The British had
already plotted the downfall of the Weimar Republic with or without
Hitler. *On top of that, Hitler was so naïve that he did not know the
allies were all out to get him in the first place until several years
well into the war. *The subtle hint was, of course, the Soviet
invasion of Poland.

If Hitler knew about the compromise of the enigma machine and purged
the traitor Admiral Canaris (equivalent of the head of CIA), the war
would be very much different. *You are way too harsh in your judgment
just like embracing the SR crap. *shrug

Listen to me. If Deursche Phsik was all it was cracked up to be it
would have developed digital computers and the mathematical means of
breaking codes. It might have discovered RSA and the trapdoor codes.

BTW - Have the Atlanteans on Aldebaran proved the Riemann Hypothesis?
Can you factorise the product of 2 large primes (the basis of RSA)
faster than you can with Aitkin's algorithm?

I keep saying if there was anything in what you are saying, anything
at all, you would have done all these things.

Why was all the Thrird Reich's Uranium used for anti tank weapons? Why
was an atomic bomb not developed. One further point. The Nazis seemed
to lay great store by darwin. Why then is Deutsche Phsik so unfit?
Give me a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, or show me how to factorize
(esily) the product of 2 large primes and I might (just) listen.

Mike talks about the truth winning out in the end. Well Europe was in
ruins before the truth was established and it seems as if it is not
finally established even now.

Saddam was put into power by the CIA and was very much Nazi inspired.
The US removed him leaving 2.3 million lost souls wandering across the
Middle East. You will see the truth if you go to Syria - Established
in the end? It is a very expensive truth.


- Ian Parker

On Aug 26, 6:55*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 26, 5:19*pm, "Mike Jr." wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:17*am, PentchoValev wrote:
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann

[snip crap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Lie

"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf
Hitler
in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so 'colossal' that no
one would believe that someone 'could have the impudence to distort
the truth so infamously'."

It didn't work for Adolf either.

--Mike Jr

But it did work for Einsteinians that John Norton calls "later
writers":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

John Norton does indeed tell the truth in this case, without any
camouflage, but that is because he has found a different way to
camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton: "The principal reason for his acceptance of the light
postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of
electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics
of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was
merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's
theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite
number: c. The speed of a light signal was quite unlike the speed of a
pebble, say. The pebble could move at any speed, depending on how hard
it was thrown. It was different with light in Maxwell's theory. No
matter how the light signal was made and projected, its speed always
came out the same. The principle of relativity assured Einstein that
the laws of nature were the same for all inertial observers. That
light always propagated at the same speed was a law within Maxwell's
theory. If the principle of relativity was applied to it, the light
postulate resulted immediately."

Clever John Norton, clever camouflage. Note that the reader will be
convinced that the constancy of the speed of light had already been
given by Maxwell's theory, which is a lie of course - according to
Maxwell's theory the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation
c' = c + v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v
is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. On the other
hand, you cannot accuse clever John Norton of lying - at the end of
the text he does tell the truth.

Pentcho Valev