Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: Quantum Gravity 401.1: Canada Finds Monopole-Like Magnetic Analog of Ice
From: Pentcho Valev on 16 Jul 2010 02:50 "The end of Einstein's relativity" does not mean that Einstein's relativity is no longer a money-spinner: http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html "The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration." http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage." "The end of Einstein's relativity" simply means that Einsteiniana's priests will exercise their priesthood somewhere else: 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 wrote: Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared." (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...") Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Jul 2010 08:30 http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11] 6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light": http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: nuny on 20 Jul 2010 16:56 On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis > that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs > does: > > http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 > "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann > "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." > > Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so > implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: > > http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html > NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates > light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second > squared." Hey, Valev. Take another look at the article. I wrote them and pointed out the possibility that it might be misunderstood, as you did. Nature thoughtfully swapped "light" and "heavy" to eliminate the possibility of confusion. The sentence now reads: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial on Earth, it accelerates heavy and light objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second squared." This is the second time I've had to write to a publication to clarify their writing *just* *for* *you*. You're welcome. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Pentcho Valev on 21 Jul 2010 01:02 Einstein's children in France used to denounce Poincaré's principle of diversity of theoretical representations and fiercely defend Einstein's principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations: http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Generalites/Darrigol%20_amp.pdf Olivier Darrigol: "Seul Einstein eut l'audace de déclarer que les divers référentiels inertiels étaient entièrement équivalents, que les temps et les espaces mesurés dans chacun d'entre eux étaient tous sur le même pied. Il se persuada d'une exacte validité du principe de relativité vers 1901, avant d'avoir lu Poincaré. Contrairement à ce dernier, il accompagnait cette conviction du rejet du concept d'éther, au nom d'un principe épistémologique d'univocité des représentations théoriques : à un seul et même phénomène devait correspondre une seule représentation théorique." Einstein's relativity has come to an end but Einstein's children have to eat - they are Poincaré's children now and denounce Einstein's principle of uniqueness of theoretical representations and fiercely defend Poincaré's principle of diversity of theoretical representations: http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article570 Olivier Darrigol: "L'étonnante diversité des descriptions théoriques utilisées dans la physique d'hier et d'aujourd'hui est souvent perçue comme une faiblesse temporaire qu'il faudra corriger dans un état plus avancé de cette science. A l'opposé de cette attitude, les héritiers de Maxwell, de Boltzmann et de Poincaré soulignent les vertus épistémiques d'une diversité des descriptions et considèrent que décrire est un acte dont la dynamique transcende les objets originels de la description. Nous proposons de les suivre en explorant la manière dont les divers modes, niveaux et ordres de description dépendent des cultures scientifiques dans lesquels ils apparaissent et affectent notre capacité à résoudre des problèmes concrets, nous poussent à étudier de nouvelles sortes de phénomènes et suggèrent de nouveaux objets physiques." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://ffp11.gie.im/Scientific-Program ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM Frontiers of Fundamental Physics [FFP11] 6-9 July 2010 | Paris, France Do you see signs, e.g. in the invited speakers' communications, that Einstein's relativity is still alive? I don't. Even John Stachel, once the most faithful Einsteinian, asks "Where is Knowledge?" and probably gives an answer to himself: "In Newton's emission theory of light": http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 27 Jul 2010 17:40 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 12, 12:18�am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis >> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs >> does: >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 >> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann >> "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." >> >> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so >> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity: >> >> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html >> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates >> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second >> squared." >> >> (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property >> is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general >> relativity...") >> >> Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's >> assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care >> less about any analogy between light and cannonballs. >> >> Pentcho Valev >> pva...(a)yahoo.com > >Oh, PV, PV, PV. >Only you would think that if light is subject to gravitational >deflection (a la Newton), then it must ALSO be ballistic (a la >Newton). It is.....proved by an analysis of variable star curves....the only real test of c+v >After all, if it exhibits ONE Newtonian property, then it must exhibit >them ALL, eh? Henry Wilson... ........Einstein's Relativity...The religion that worships negative space.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Chaos in the solar system Next: Quantum Gravity 401.1: Canada Finds Monopole-Like Magnetic Analog of Ice |