Prev: Axiom of Regularity:
Next: ZFC Can Prove Everything Provable? But how do you define "provable"here??
From: John Jones on 13 Jan 2010 17:57
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 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..."
>
> "The other Einstein" was the honest (but weaker) moiety of Einstein's
> split personality that was sorry for having destroyed theoretical
> physics by procrusteanizing it into conformity with his 1905 false
> light postulate:
>
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
> Radiation by 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."
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
> "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
> "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
> a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
> particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
> waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
> breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
> age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
> needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> 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."
> 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: "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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> 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."
>
> 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
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: John Jones on 19 Jan 2010 23:20
John Jones wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 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..."
>>
>> "The other Einstein" was the honest (but weaker) moiety of Einstein's
>> split personality that was sorry for having destroyed theoretical
>> physics by procrusteanizing it into conformity with his 1905 false
>> light postulate:
>>
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
>>
>> The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
>> Radiation by 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."
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
>> "Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
>> "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds
>> a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as
>> particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of
>> waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before
>> breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein,
>> age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he
>> needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."
>>
>> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
>>
>> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
>> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
>> 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."
>> 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: "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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
>> 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."
>>
>> 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
>> pvalev(a)yahoo.com

no they really are.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Axiom of Regularity:
Next: ZFC Can Prove Everything Provable? But how do you define "provable"here??