http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2515
"...he then goes on to propose the completely opposite hypothesis, namely that "the energy of light is discontinuously distributed". Einstein advocates this view partly because the wave theory seems to lead to contradictions when applied to certain emission and absorption phenomena (such as the photoelectric effect), but mainly because he is dissatisfied with the "profound difference" that existed between the discrete corpuscular description of matter and Maxwell's continuous-field description of radiation."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.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."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativité, histoire d'une grande idée", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112: "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumière est constituée de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggéré dans son premier article, 13 semaines plus tôt, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetée d'un train qui roule très vite fait bien plus de dégâts que si on la jette d'un train a l'arrêt. Or, d'après Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas indépendante du mouvement du corps qui l'émet! Si nous considérons que la lumière est composée de particules qui obéissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront à la relativité newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas nécessaire de recourir à la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou à la transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'échec de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, résista cependant à la tentation d'expliquer ces échecs à l'aide des idées newtoniennes, simples et familières. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins évident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'éther."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
June 30 2008, 11:19 AM
Divine Albert again:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "The problem seems to me how one can formulate statements about a discontinuum without calling on a continuum as an aid; the latter should be banned from the theory as a supplementary construction not justified by the essence of the problem, which corresponds to nothing 'real'."
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
July 10 2008, 5:34 AM
I have found Banesh Hoffmann's original text in English (note the hint at Einstein's idiotic patchwork that put an end to any possible PHYSICAL interpretation of relativity):
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."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
July 11 2008, 8:18 AM
The continuous-field concept of light ("...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 best presented by Louis de Broglie:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein_pdf/Einstein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une "théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
électromagnétique."
Comparing Banesh Hoffmann's and Louis de Broglie's texts shows unequivocally that the only deficiency of the continuous-field concept that could kill not only Einstein's theory but also "the rest of contemporary physics" is that the continuous-field concept does not allow the speed of light to depend on the speed of the light source, that is, it establishes the reign of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate once and for all. Two more quotations are relevant here:
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!"
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."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
July 22 2008, 2:59 AM
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-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."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
July 30 2008, 12:07 PM
> http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-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."
Divine Albert's Divine Theory is so easy to get rid of! People should just apply the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light to the light clock effect Zombie Magician is demonstrating here:
Re: CONTINUUM, DISCONTINUUM, EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
August 4 2008, 8:41 PM
Einstein's skepticism about the field concept of light and his 1954 confession that this concept might kill contemporary physics:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.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."
can easily be understood by analysing this paper (one should only be able to see through the standard relativistic camouflage):
