Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<xDCdnbGola_Axnv7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 03:58:21 +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> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 20:58:24 -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: <5e68e032783359ddee03cbb947fb9882@www.novabbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <xDCdnbGola_Axnv7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 67 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-KHwGmAvsdttQdtosXjLlR/TM64tzbxtSSRj2XZprMQXCNEPnzVy7Kq+4y3MZjcCrNjz6NIhM7hZ3syT!ju8b/EWQLTTQi2O5RSjLPCq+QFaqr+YU0tFQKA0hkXld2TBhq24yL546Y/9v9IkaJBonCesv54of!5A== 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: 4453 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.