http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781540289/einstein_on_gravitation_from_scientific_american.html
Albert Einstein 1950: "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a CONTINUOUS FIELD, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."

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.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!"

Einstein's 1954 confession:

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."

The first three quotations suggest that it would have been fairer for Einstein to express his 1954 confession in the following way:

Honest Albert 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon my 1905 false light postulate. 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
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://au.encarta.msn.com/sidebar_781540289/einstein_on_gravitation_from_scientific_american.html
> Albert Einstein 1950: "Since the theory of general relativity implies
> the representation of physical reality by a CONTINUOUS FIELD, the
> concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental
> part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a
> limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy
> density are particularly high."
>
>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.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!"
>
> Einstein's 1954 confession:
>
>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."
>
> The first three quotations suggest that it would have been fairer for
> Einstein to express his 1954 confession in the following way:
>
> Honest Albert 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon my 1905 false light postulate. 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."

False heroes discuss (rather, extract career and money from) dying science:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
Lee Smolin: "A Crisis in Fundamental Physics....Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was proposed in 1981.....I should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physicsthat part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."

The world does not care about dying science, but even if it did, there would be no-one to correctly analyse the situation (science journalists can only practice sycophancy and worship false heroes):

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/science-journalism-in-decline.html
"Science Journalism in Decline....Over the past decade it has been the "professional" science journalists themselves who were the gullible victims of scientific hype and PR. The scientific accuracy of press releases leaves a great deal to be desired. They are, after all, intended to promote the researcher and the institution. They are heavily biased....If science journalists really did their job of separating the wheat from the chaff then I would be their biggest cheerleader. Instead, for the most part they have been completely seduced by the lure of scientific breakthroughs and revolutions promoted by self-serving scientists and their institutions. There are notable exceptions, but the majority of science journalists have failed at the one job they are supposed to do better than non-science journalists. That's why we would be better off without them."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> False heroes discuss (rather, extract career and money from) dying
> science:
>
>http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
> Lee Smolin: "A Crisis in Fundamental Physics....Then, about 30 years
> ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance
> in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe
> theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The
> last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any
> support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe
> called inflation, which was proposed in 1981.....I should emphasize
> that this crisis involves only fundamental physicsthat part of
> physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."
>
> The world does not care about dying science, but even if it did, there
> would be no-one to correctly analyse the situation (science
> journalists can only practice sycophancy and worship false heroes):
>
>http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/science-journalism-in-decline.html
> "Science Journalism in Decline....Over the past decade it has been the
> "professional" science journalists themselves who were the gullible
> victims of scientific hype and PR. The scientific accuracy of press
> releases leaves a great deal to be desired. They are, after all,
> intended to promote the researcher and the institution. They are
> heavily biased....If science journalists really did their job of
> separating the wheat from the chaff then I would be their biggest
> cheerleader. Instead, for the most part they have been completely
> seduced by the lure of scientific breakthroughs and revolutions
> promoted by self-serving scientists and their institutions. There are
> notable exceptions, but the majority of science journalists have
> failed at the one job they are supposed to do better than non-science
> journalists. That's why we would be better off without them."

A typical journalist-sycophant, John Farrell, who used to sing dithyrambs but is now more than silent about Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake
Was Einstein a fake? by John Farrell
Issue 11 of Cosmos, October 2006
"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they have a point? Was Einstein a fake?"

There is a nice recent reply to Farrell's sycophancy:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake?page=2
"May the Temple of Relativity collapse! The GR & SR theories are the modern day equivalents of Earth-centric theories of the past. The level of academic censorship surrounding them is proof enough of their inconsistencies. Listening to a modern-day mainstream theoretical physicist is like listening to the rant of a meth-head at 3:00 AM on Friday night.
One thing that is universal for SR & GR is that whenever a finding is discovered that in anyway contradicts the establishment, it is claimed to be due to some unknown phenomenon, usually to be named "dark something". Under no circumstances can it be due to something wrong with GR or SR itself. My biggest problem with Relativity is that it is now shoved into our faces from kindergarten through graduate school as an absolute, when the only absolute thing about relativity is the number of holes in it. May GR & SR die swiftly, so that real science can move forward. P.S. My wife and I were watching the Science Channel yesterday when a show about Relativity came on with host Dr. Michio Kaku. After listening to him explain GR & SR for about 10 minutes, my wife turned to me and asked, "Is he on drugs or something?". I wish some of these "theoretical physicists" could hear themselves speak, they sound like crazy people." Submitted by Visitor on 4 March 2009 - 4:11pm.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pencho said: "I wish some of these "theoretical physicists" could hear themselves speak, they sound like crazy people."

Jose says: They love to hear themselves yammer. They just cannot Listen to themselves. They ARE crazy people. Cognitive dissonance blocks their mentality.