Re: In 1911, EInstein thought that photons had mass. Still in use 123 years after,

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.