ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE, EINSTEINIANS!

[Pentcho Valev]

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell, or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else all motion, including that with the speed of light, is relative, as with Ritz."

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature."

In 1954 Einstein almost admitted that he had killed physics by basing his theory on the field concept:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Evolution-of-Physics/Albert-Einstein/9780671201562
Albert Einstein (1938): "The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory according to which the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the light source (this, combined with the principle of relativity, made the motion with the speed of light absolute, not relative):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"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."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, 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

[Dan Christensen]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 2:39:33 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://worldnpa.org


Pentcho Valev FAQ

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


John Baez, "The Crackpot Index"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Pentcho Valev]

A natural process of disintegration of the Einsteinian soul:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, Lee Smolin, p. 163: "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer's definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer - call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving. End of story. In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion."

Only a couple of years earlier Smolin was much saner and even on the right track:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev