Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 05:03:38 +0000
Subject: Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123
 years after,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <b0788923a07a14a4d1cd494533f4ae12@www.novabbs.com>
 <vc4sa1$1lsnl$1@dont-email.me>
 <8add4994ad042201cb3d9096a43136c2@www.novabbs.com>
 <c71583c4b5c756a26078855cc478372f@www.novabbs.com>
 <mJ6cndINi7gSonv7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <5d11b52fc77931e492b07b0ad71e8d54@www.novabbs.com>
 <5e68e032783359ddee03cbb947fb9882@www.novabbs.com>
 <xDCdnbGola_Axnv7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <d--dnQaxDs5u-Hv7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:03:54 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d--dnQaxDs5u-Hv7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <etucncerppw393v7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 200
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XRvYdHftuWrNGoFJQ6BPDqfCCMaHh0X1bdBvIrY1rHKsRtT+rtbqV3uZWK6Eg1DAwDpnUhNxtx348dr!Q5IsSHZ1iHwA8g44fw0TU63iHnqtY7LDCKsjI/Ap/8MJUmp6YPGbOOi+GYJ0uc7xFjDpUDZECGP/!yw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 10128

On 09/14/2024 09:43 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/14/2024 08:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/14/2024 07:58 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>> Mr. Hertz: You need not apologize for criticizing the consensus of
>>> science, hiding behind the corrupt institution of peer-reviewed
>>> journals, and teaching fraudulent nonsense like four dimensions and
>>> curved space that some foolish people swallow. Paul and Ross are awfully
>>> gullible.
>>> "I really think that Einstein is a practical joker, pulling the legs of
>>> his enthusiastic followers, more Einsteinisch than he." - Oliver
>>> Heaviside
>>
>> Hey now, here it's only 3 + 1/2 dimensions, or a "ray" of time.
>>
>> Continuity: is aggreged by curved space-time, because it
>> needs the _further_ definition, that it is a conceit,
>> to that space-time is a continuous manifold (and that
>> like Einstein later says, there is a "the time"), so that
>> the curving of space-time is only a projection of
>> the _local_, as with regards coordinates, the,
>> "coordinate-free", and "tensorial products",
>> of whatever form they may be.
>>
>> Einstein in a sense has to defend himself from his followers,
>> and he does so in his maturation, with his earlier more
>> "practical" "success", and his later more fair "theory",
>> fair to himself and fair to theory, as with regards to
>> Einstein's model philosopher and model physicist, and
>> his notion of "success" of a theory, then as with regards
>> to Einstein's later theory, that includes a) that SR is
>> local and derivative and there's the "spacial" for it
>> and b) that GR is an _inertial_ system and a differential
>> system as parameterized by a "the time".
>>
>> That there isn't yet really a practical success of that,
>> "Einstein's Relativity", has that yet not even Einstein's
>> own earlier theories, fulfill his later theory as of
>> "Out of My Later Years", Einstein's total field theory.
>>
>> There's a lot of "right place, right time" involved,
>> then as with regards to for example Eddington and Freundlich,
>> examples.
>>
>> That's not a defense of coat-tailing paper-hanging fudge-coating
>> theory-tweaking parameter-pickers, by any means, most of whom of course
>> are devout Einstein followers, as far as they think they know.
>>
>>
>> It is so that Heaviside and Larmor and Faraday and
>> so on have a lot going on with respect to Maxwell in
>> the middle, as with regards to E&M, while as with
>> regards to GR there's FitzGerald and for space-contraction,
>> "Lorentzian",
>> which keeps L-principle light's constancy while that
>> the linear stays Galilean-Lorentzian while the
>> rotational gets into Ehrenfest and Sagnac, as with
>> regards to of course still making ALL the data fit.
>>
>> Of course it must be super-classical, and non-linear,
>> for example reading over Nayfeh and into Fritz London,
>> where Hooke's law and Clausius and Boltzmann peter out,
>> to be any kind of total field theory for example,
>> Mach-ian and Mach-ian and Mach-ian again, and
>> for realists.
>>
>> Lorentzian, Laplacian, Lagrangian:
>> revisit Heisenberg, Hubble, Higgs.
>>
>>
>
> Here for example Freundlich writes up 1915's Einstein's theories,
>
> https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70793/pg70793-images.html
>
> as with regards to that being about a hundred years ago.
>
> "With respect to the postulate of continuity, this hypothesis seems
> inconsistent, in so far as it introduces implicit statements about
> finite distances into purely differential laws, in which only
> line-elements occur; but it does not contradict the postulate.
> The postulate of the relativity of all motion adopts a different
> attitude towards the possibility of giving the line-element the
> Euclidean form in particular."
>
> "The laws of physics must, therefore, preserve their form in passing
> from one such system to another...."
>
> ("Theory of Gravitation", 3.a.)
>
> That's a great little paper, I don't recall reading it before.
> It sort of reminds me of Maclaurin backing Newton, where with
> regards to calculus, Maclaurin wrote Newton's calculus, its
> formal outline.
>
>
>
> "To realize this fully, we must revert
> to the foundations of geometry,.... Riemann ...."
>
> Well, yeah, you blame Riemann and Lebesgue for that.
>
>
> "Algebraic geometers", may, pick to sort of be one of
> either "algebraic GEOMETERS", or, "ALGEBRAIC geometers",
> and, kind of like beginning with "the space" or "the word",
> as for example is given as the beginnings in the beginnings.
> Here it's an algebraic GEOMETRY, in so few words. (Then
> a strong metonymy, ..., ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY, though at some
> point "philosophy" _is_ involved, if there merest and least.)
>
>
> The modern sky-survey, includes: apparent super-luminal
> motion. Thus, it's data.
>
>
> "Whereas, then, the postulate of continuity (cf. page 20)
> seemed to render it only advisable not to introduce the
> narrowing assumptions of the Euclidean determination of measure,
> the principle of general relativity no longer leaves us any choice."
>
> OR:
>
> Now, this is a conceit because in each "local" "frame" in "space",
> there's a metric what implies a norm and it's quite all Euclidean
> as with regards to "space warp" and what is "frames in spaces and
> spaces in frames, Rahme-Raumen and Raume-Rahmen", yet Euclidean.
>
> The Planckian then what gets all involved because SR was invented
> after electron physics was assumed and before running constants
> where introduced, where "there are eventually either no straight
> lines or no right angles after discretization the quantization
> which is de-normalization", that that's what "de-normalization"
> _is_ with regards to the renormalizability problem wrapper as
> new these days as the old measure problem wrapped as the new
> measure problem, illustrates that everything's yet very
> "linear", in these.
>
>
> "However necessary and fruitful a mental experiment may often be, there
> is the ever-present danger that an abstraction which has been carried
> unduly far loses sight of the physical contents of its underlying notions."
>
> So, "the severe abstraction" is what's usually called "successful",
> because, controlled it's simply repeatable and thusly indubitable.
> Yet, ..., that's a reading of Freundlich _exactly the opposite_
> of what he inteded, with regards to the "philosophy" or mental
> reasoning, and what's "observable" as with regards to that
> light's deemed the instrument, and there was no notion yet of
> either neutrino detectors, or, gravitational wave detectors.
>
> Also de Broglie and later Bohm and Aspect-type experiments
> were quite a ways up the line as with regards to Huygens,
> Fizeau, and Fresnel.
>
> So anyways Freundlich's paper there is a great exposition of
> Einstein's theories of SR and GR in about 1915, and, I think
> that pretty much anybody who says "Einstein's SR and GR" without
> further qualification, would necessarily follow it.
>
> They'd be unqualified to unqualifiedly follow it,
> yet, they'd be unqualified not to follow it,
> then as with regards to the qualifications of their qualifications.
>
>
> Then he accentuates the equivalency principle and that
> may be nice and terrestrial yet it's not necessary.
>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========