The existential question in Einstein zombie world:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the Einsteinians?

Quotations that lead to an unambiguous answer:

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.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: "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: "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."

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780142003619,00.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: "The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe works."

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
pvalev@yahoo.com

Or perhaps Einstein's goal of complete unification can only be achieved by someone with the audacity and courage to disdain the mainstream and return to the physical, intuitive, and mathematically unsophisticated methodology of the young Einstein. The answers to such questions are still to come.


waves his hand That's what I'm doing, actually.


A growing number of us engaged in this work believe that Dyson and his contemporaries declared the revolution over too soon, and that to finish the job Einstein started we will have to return to his preoccupations with the foundations of our understanding of space, time, matter, and the quantum.


Well, I do believe I said roughly that exact thing, "The only thing I feel will remain of Einstein's work is the relationship he noted between space, time, matter, and energy."



That's the weird thing about this board, the way it sounds, Einsteinian's are the norm, and the mainstream. It appears that they are persecuting the anti or non relativists, whatever name you choose.


In fact, the mainstream is a bunch of Quantum Zombies, unwilling to approach the problems in quantum theories, and the complete lack of a physical explanation of reality in their frameworks.

Max, are you aware that using other peoples work without attribution or quotes is plagiarism? Much of your post comes from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279.

A more straightforward answer to the question "Where are the Einsteinians?": Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) have all abandoned Divine Albert's Divine Theory, explicitly or implicitly, because they now know that the only reasonable translation of Einstein's 1954 confession:

"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."

is:

"I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the 1905 light postulate, that is on the false principle of constancy of the speed of light. 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."

Two more relevant quotations:

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.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@yahoo.com

bob, shhhh, the links are right up there, and the double spaces in between each takes it from pentcho's source to my post, and back. I'd be a bit more worried about stupid little details like that, but I'm slightly exhausted due to it being JUST too hot to turn the AC on at night here.

Another point is this, my reflex when quoting is to put [quote][/quote] tags separated from the text with double spaces, this board format doesn't use bbcode, so when I'm being hurried out the door and trying to finish a thought I'm focusing on the content, not quotation marks.

Max, failure to distinguish quoted material from your own work is deceitful. You used the same "I'm to harried" excuse in the GPS string when you falsely accused me of "avoiding" your question. You always seem to have enough time to tell people when you think they are wrong but the truth is you don't take the time to actually read what I (we) have to say.

You have claimed that you are willing to admit mistakes but all I read from you is lame excuses. It is better to seek consul from an honest child that a dis-honest adult.

Plagiarism is not a trivial mistake and I am not nit-picking when I point it out.

This message board is not casual conversation it takes time for us to read and respond to you as well. If you are not able to show us the respect by reading what we have to say then you have no right to expect we should pay any attention to what you have to say.

Proper grammar and composition is the last vestige to civilized communication. If you fancy yourself the teacher then you should start with integrity and work you way down to the lessor included sciences.

If I am to communicate with you "at" your level then I will do so at my whim because you obviously are not able to communicate "to" my level.

bob s

Oh, I've pretty much given up on actually establishing communication here. When you can logically explain something to someone, back it up with facts and sources, answer and explain any questions they have... and still have them say "nuh uh"...

You just have to accept at some point that they don't actually care what is true, only what they've decided to believe matters.

Normally you only really encounter this mindset in religious discussions, to find it applied to an experimentally confirmed aspect of science is still unbelievable to me.


I can't communicate at your level bob, I am unable to deny the reality of science and logic fully enough to do so to your satisfaction.

So I can assume then Max, that you will continue to plagiarize.

Bob S. Don't you understand? We must use Einsteinian logic and math to prove our selves right, unless that conflicts with Max™'s logic, then, Max™'s logic overrides Einstein logic.

The more you spank him, the more he likes it.

Be sure to leave out capitalization, punctuation, and mix up word order.

His " key is broken, so that can't be held against him either.

And remember: everything can move around in an inertial frame: Max™ said so.

If you have time please tell me again, what does "inertial frame" mean?

Speaking of quotes, I had my "close quote" in the wrong place. That's the reason for this edit.

Curt,
"If you have time please tell me again, what does "inertial frame mean?"

Well Curt, after watching the video that Max linked us to, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY according to the instructor, his statement was to the effect 'Newtonian mechanics hold in an inertial frame so, an inertial frame is where Newtonian mechanics hold'. My understanding is that it is the frame work for determining distance over a rate of time at constant (uniform) acceleration. Inertia is the resistance to the change of acceleration in the inertial frame. An object falling in a gravitational field undergoes an increase in acceleration, if the object comes to rest, say you stop the object from falling, then the inertia of the body is resisted by your hand which accounts for the weight of the object, if you let go of the object it will continues its fall at the rate of increasing acceleration from the point at which you stopped it. So, the "inertial frame" would be the path that the object took from beginning to ending its fall, a new "inertial frame" would be required when you stopped the falling object and a third "inertial frame" is required when you let go of the object.

Does that match your understanding of an "inertial frame" is?

bob s

I tried to watch that thing. Kept going to sleep. I noticed at the end of the video, the professor stated putting himself to sleep, and cut the Twin paradox "explanation" short.

No wonder poor Max™ is confused.

Since gravity is compound acceleration, it has to be excluded. (No such thing as a "uniform gravitational field.) Gravity is a gradient field along with magnetism and the electric field.

Furthermore, if objects are moving at velocity, but in different directions, there will appear to be acceleration between them, even though there is not. This is more confusion for Max™, and the Stanford professor.

A plain old "constant acceleration" has to be excluded too: That was why Albert saved it for "general relativity."

Curt, more confusion for Max is that, two bodies in motion relative to one another share a common speed. one can not be held to be going twice as fast as the other without invoking a third observer and even then the speed is only relative to the third observer. Absolute rest can not exist without the Aether and with the Aether SR does not exist.

bob s

I forgot the main point: If things can move around within the "inertial frame," Why did Albert bother to specify a "rest" frame and a "moving" frame??????????????????

Heh? Heh? Mr. Max™ and Mr. Stanford professor???????????????????????????????????

But then you are right, Bob S, as usual.

Man, you are completely out of touch with what Relativity means huh.

An inertial frame of observation is one in which the observer cannot determine experimentally if they are accelerating. Thus they could claim to be at rest, though they may be in motion with an arbitrary velocity.

It has no bearing upon the objects they are observing, only the observers state is described in such a frame.


Your claim that everything in an inertial frame must be moving the same direction is patently absurd, as it implies that everything the observer could possibly see has to be moving the same way.


If you are in a reference frame where you perform some experiments which suggest that you are at rest, and two butterflies flap past you going in two different directions, you're still in an inertial frame. They're not constrained to your state of motion.

Re: Max, WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINIANS? October 24 2008, 5:05 PM

Max,
"Man, you are completely out of touch with what Relativity means huh."

Max, try and read this slowly, I understand what Relativity means but I reject it because it is patent fantasy. But then, you did not address you post to me did you! On the other hand you did not address your post to anyone else, so I responded.

Max™ said: "If you are in a reference frame where you perform some experiments which suggest that you are at rest, and two butterflies flap past you going in two different directions, you're still in an inertial frame."

Curt says: Why am I answering this blowhard? One more time: You are at rest. are the butterflies at rest?? NO! Max™, they are in two different frames going two different other directions. Einstein assumes that the observer in the "at rest frame" can see into the other frames. You, on the other hand, can't see. you can't imagine. You can't even comprehend the written language.

Go down and shop with the blue-lite special shoppers: I know you will be satisfied with what ever you decide to buy.

Yes Curt, but how can you be sure it is not the butterflies who are at rest and Max is one moving? I'm kidding Curt! But then again, maybe not.

bob s

It's the butterflies going different directions and being at rest, simultaneously, that has messed up his mind. It must be jello by now. As long as he stays cool, it won't run. Should it heat up, he'll have to close all orifices.

Hilarious


Curt: Why am I answering this blowhard? One more time: You are at rest. are the butterflies at rest?? NO! Max™, they are in two different frames going two different other directions. Einstein assumes that the observer in the "at rest frame" can see into the other frames.


Max: You truly have no idea what you're talking about do you? A frame of reference is just the angle which you observe events from. I'm not "seeing into other frames", rather we're observing events from different frames.

You stated that everything in an inertial frame has to travel the same way at the same speed. Now you void that statement, and make a different mistake. From my point of view, my frame of reference, the butterflies are following their paths within my frame.

From THEIR frames, they will claim different observations based on their motion.


I assumed that people who are claiming to debunk Relativity would at least understand the most basic terminology, but wow, you're completely ignorant of anything other than what you think the theories say.

Hilariously, you correctly identify the mistakes, but they're just in your poorly formed perception of the theory.

If things are as you say, then why did Einstein need two frames?

Why did he say they were interchangeable?

Why are you so dense? Your mental density approaches that event horizon where everything is torn apart.

You don't even understand the ambiguities of light reception (registration in your theory):

Depending upon location, one's perception of the order of events can be out of order with reality; EVEN WHEN ALL EVENTS ARE AT REST WITH ALL OBSERVERS.

No, son, if you are at rest relative to the events, and other observers are as well... that is the one situation where they will all agree on the order of those events.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about, huh?

I am not going to explain it to you. Just draw a picture of some points and imagine the finite speed of light traveling between them.

I'll come back in a million years and see if you figgrd it out.

Well, maybe I'll come back after a thousand years and give you a clue.

You are young enough to be my niece.

Unless you misspelled "Sun," and were referring to how bright I am.

Now, that's not like a humble guy like me to utter something like that. Spank me.

Here is a clue:

We requisition some slave strobes (they flash when they receive a flash from somewhere else.) Each one flashes a different color. We place them in a line, each 100 feet from the next. Thus, light will take 100 nanoseconds to travel from one to the next slave strobe. each strobe is only allowed to flash in response to one flash. They are different colors so we can distinguish the flashes from each one. Two cameras at each strobe facing parallel to the line and in opposite directions, take pictures and record the time of each picture as each strobe senses flashes.

Now; if the strobe on the right flashes, it will set the others off successively, every 100 nanoseconds. Its camera will record each successive flash as each successive strobe flashes, until all the colors are recorded as the last in the line of strobes flash.

The camera on the left will only take one picture, and it will show that all the strobes flashed at the same time. This is because the first flash and all successive flashes arrive there at the same time.

The left camera sees everything happen at the same time, whereas the camera on the right sees the real situation: that each flashed successively.

This paradox happens every instant that you view in depth scenes, right before your eyes.

You always have to have things physically moving. For your information, things can maintain the same positional relationship for quite long time, even though they, as a group, are changing position with other things. This is apparently something you can't handle.

That's all well and good kiddo, the problem is, you aren't required to have things in a stable arrangement around an observer for that observer to claim an inertial frame of reference.


How do I know this?

Imagine an observer with NOTHING around him as far as he can see.

If he performs experiments and cannot determine that he is accelerating, then he can claim to be in an inertial frame of reference.


The frame of reference depends on the OBSERVER and his motion through the environment, NOT on the motion of other objects in the environment around the observer.

Max™ said:

[An observer,]if he performs experiments and cannot determine that he is accelerating, then he can claim to be in an inertial frame of reference.

Curt says:

Max™ will never realize that an inertial frame is imaginary. It has to comply with logic. It has nothing to do with whether an observer can figure out his surroundings. They don't matter.

An observer in orbit or freefall thinks he is not accelerated. He/she is wrong. There is no such ting as an inertial frame in reality, just as there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum in reality, unless it exists in M**™'s body somewhere. (Gravity is supposed to control the motions of galaxies, so space is never free of it.)

An inertial frame, since it is imaginary, and is used to logically explain a situation, cannot have the members which it includes, move about and change distances within it. If they do, they are in a different frame. Any frame can be as big or small as is required for the purpose of explaining a logical point. His Stanford Professor and Wiki do not understand this simple truth either.

Hi, that's why General Relativity is around.

Ever heard of it?