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

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.
>
>
So, if you have issues with Einstein's SR and GR of 1915,
then, you should be able to point to them in Freundlich's paper.
>
>
>
Freundlich was wrong about the red-shift and got scooped
on the Mercury picture in the eclipse, though he was
working off what Hubble made of red-shift, then it's
similar for Einstein he lined up with electron physics
then really worked into "severe abstraction" as with
regards to energy and about what was going on with
old QM then stochastic QM if then that he had to open
up after de Broglie to keep up - anyways though anything
you claim to assign to Einstein, circa 1915, you should
be able to point to in Freundlich's paper there.
>
>
I have a theory starting with mathematics,
so physics is sort of a side-show.
>
>

If you haven't read Einstein's "Out of My Later Years"
here I plow through it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHVOLO1ryGQ&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F41oobFHfUUar7iOwc5vNc3&index=1
"Reading from Einstein's _Out of My Later Years_"
There are no "advertisements" involved.