WHAT DO RELATIVISTS SMOLIN AND NORTON SUGGEST?

Since Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light is
false, Einstein's space-time concoction should be rejected:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space
and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share
Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things
and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter. If the central property of space-time is
the result of the existence of matter, how can we be sure that space
and time exist on their own and are not convenient illusions? "Hence
my hesitation," Norton says. While Norton hesitates, Smolin is intent
on rescuing time. He believes time has to be real and that it is a
fundamental property of the universe."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

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."

Pentcho Valev

On 8 Jan, 07:59, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted


1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 8, 9:59 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Since Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light is
false, Einstein's space-time concoction should be rejected:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space
and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share
Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things
and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter. If the central property of space-time is
the result of the existence of matter, how can we be sure that space
and time exist on their own and are not convenient illusions? "Hence
my hesitation," Norton says. While Norton hesitates, Smolin is intent
on rescuing time. He believes time has to be real and that it is a
fundamental property of the universe."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

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."

More suggestions by Lee Smolin and John Norton:

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.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it."
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

Clearly all suggestions are closely related to Einstein's two
fundamental confessions:

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.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."

Pentcho Valev

On 8 Jan, 14:53, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On 8 Jan, 07:59, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted


1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 8, 3:53*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:59 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





Since Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light is
false, Einstein's space-time concoction should be rejected:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-makes-the-uni...
"Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space
and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share
Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things
and the relationships between them. It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter. If the central property of space-time is
the result of the existence of matter, how can we be sure that space
and time exist on their own and are not convenient illusions? "Hence
my hesitation," Norton says. While Norton hesitates, Smolin is intent
on rescuing time. He believes time has to be real and that it is a
fundamental property of the universe."

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

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."


More suggestions by Lee Smolin and John Norton:

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.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it."
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

Clearly all suggestions are closely related to Einstein's two
fundamental confessions:

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

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Pentcho for bringing us this interesting material. It is very
helpful, not only for a better understanding of Physics, but to remind
us that the paradigms of today’s fundamental physics are not to be
considered unquestionable dogmas but only “description hypothesis”
that can be changed, as have been done many times in the past.
(Some posters don’t seem able to understand this simple fact and that
may be the reason why they waste their (and our) time responding with
prepotent admonitions, but no arguments, to most honest criticism of
Einstein’s Relativity).

And thanks for all your other posts with interesting and imaginative
contributions.
Keep your good work.
Best regards.
Carlos L

On 8 Jan, 07:59, Pentcho Valev wrote:


Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted


1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.