SCIENCE WITHOUT NEWTON EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3475307.ece
"Long famed for the quality of its scientific research, Britain is
fast becoming a nation of science illiterates: recent figures show a
worrying decline in the numbers of schoolchildren taking science
subjects to GCSE and A level (in 25 years, the number of physics A-
level students has halved), and the problem is just as acute at
undergraduate level."

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

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la
vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les
résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

For the moment John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt are the only
Einsteinians who want to reintroduce Newton's emission theory of
light, without abandoning (at least not explicitly) Einstein's
idiocies:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
For the moment John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt are the only
Einsteinians who want to reintroduce Newton's emission theory of
light, without abandoning (at least not explicitly) Einstein's
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."

While John Stachel teaches that Newton's emission theory and
Einstein's relativity are compatible:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

his friend in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton, teaches the
opposite:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."

Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have discovered that, if you
teach both assertions and their negations, rationality in Einstein
zombie world disappears irreversibly so from some point on you can
teach anything - there will be no reaction at all.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by Pentcho Valev
For the moment John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt are the only
Einsteinians who want to reintroduce Newton's emission theory of
light, without abandoning (at least not explicitly) Einstein's
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."

While John Stachel teaches that Newton's emission theory and
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
his friend in Einstein criminal cult, John Norton, teaches the
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."
Hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have discovered that, if you
teach both assertions and their negations, rationality in Einstein
zombie world disappears irreversibly so from some point on you can
teach anything - there will be no reaction at all.

John Stachel's fuller explanation of the compatibility of Newton's
emission theory of light and Einstein's relativity:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "As a theory of principle (see above), the theory of
relativity provides important guidelines in the search for such a
satisfactory theory. Einstein anticipated the ultimate construction of
"a complete worldview that is in accord with the principle of
relativity."[25] In the meantime, the theory offered clues to the
construction of such a worldview. One clue concerns the structure of
electromagnetic radiation. Not only is the theory compatible with an
emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances. He maintained that "the next phase in the development
of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light, which may be
regarded as a sort of fusion of the undulatory and emission theories
of light."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY OF LIGHT,
electricity and magnetism TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

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

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-
1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the
18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF
LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH.

Jean Eisenstaedt is a sycophant of John Stachel's but he reads neither
the writings of his Master nor those of the cleverer Master John

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of
particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity
into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission
theory" of light, a phrase I shall use. The need to explain the
phenomena of interference, diffraction and polarization of light
gradually led physicists to abandon the emission theory in favor of
the competing wave theory, previously its less-favored rival.
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave
seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave
theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he
was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of
the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now
call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before
publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort
of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked
very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to
explain all the interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of
his first light quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids
mention of the ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up
the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a
beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years
later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's
emission theory of light."......If we model a beam of light as a
stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few
years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an
adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion
of the wave and emission theories. This is an example of how the
special theory of relativity functioned as a theory of principle,
limiting but not fixing the choice of a constructive theory of light."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY OF LIGHT,
electricity and magnetism TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip 109 lines of crap]

Newton, Isaac. 1687, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"

Electromagnetism was not mathemtically modeled until ~1865 by
Maxwell. As Newtonian physics tacitly assumes c=infinity, G=G, h=zero
there can be no electromagnetism accurately modeled within
"Principia."

Newton with c=c, G=zero, h=zero is Special Relativity.
Newton with c=c, G=G, h=zero is General Relativity.
Newton with c=c, G=zero, h=h is qyantum field theory.

There's no slack in the gears, idiot Pentcho. The only valid assaults
are

1) Empirically falsify a theory's founding postulate(s), e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
probing isotropic vacuum in the massed sector and the Eqivalence
Principle for chemically identical, opposite parity mass
configurations re teleparallel gravitation.

2) Emprically falsify theory's prediction with observation. You
are looking in the wrong place, Pentcho,

Loading Image...

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha...
Self-confessed "Autodidact" "Uncle rect-Al" <***@hate.spam.net>
kacked in his urin-Al news:***@hate.spam.net...
[flushed rect-Al crap]
.. idiot Pentcho. The only valid assaults are
1) Empirically falsify a theory's founding postulate(s), e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
probing isotropic vacuum in the massed sector and the Eqivalence
Principle for chemically identical, opposite parity mass
configurations re teleparallel gravitation.
Uncle fec-Al
hanson wrote:
... uuhhhhahahaHAHAHA... rect-Al, listen, you must be loudly
blaring here about you own miserable and abject failures with
your invalid assaults via Eotvoes and Calorimetry... with results
that were hardly qualifying you to call anybody names, especially
when you are the "idiot"... ... you who, to boot, couldn't even
produce a salable cockroach repellant and much less any of
your loudly announced kg-sized gem quality diamonds.
All your loudmouthed second hand quoting and plagiarizing from
the web has earned you is nothing more, at your geriatric age,
then you being the proud owner of a 1989 Volkswagen Golf
which you cursed having to drive it for another 11 years... ahaha...
Some success!... ahahaha.. You'd been much better off had you,
in a "teleparallel" fashion, also made the efforts to generate some
money... because none of your loud-mouthing here buys you even
a much as a cup of coffee... But you are always good for a chuckle.
Carry on and thanks for the laughs... AHAHAHA... ahahahanson....

[Jeff▲Relf]

Back around 2000, I got a programming gig from a guy in Sci.Physics;
so I was salable, sellable, saleable and marketable too boot.

[hanson]

Post by Jeff▲Relf
Back around 2000, I got a programming gig from a guy in Sci.Physics;
so I was salable, sellable, saleable and marketable too boot.

AHAHAHA...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahaha...
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..

[Robert J. Kolker]

Post by Uncle Al
1) Empirically falsify a theory's founding postulate(s), e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
probing isotropic vacuum in the massed sector and the Eqivalence
Principle for chemically identical, opposite parity mass
configurations re teleparallel gravitation.
2) Emprically falsify theory's prediction with observation. You
are looking in the wrong place, Pentcho,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

You left out 3). Show that the theory is mathematicially incosistent.
An inconsistent formal system implies -any- conclusion.

Bob Kolker

[Uncle Al]

Post by Robert J. Kolker

Post by Uncle Al
1) Empirically falsify a theory's founding postulate(s), e.g.,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
probing isotropic vacuum in the massed sector and the Eqivalence
Principle for chemically identical, opposite parity mass
configurations re teleparallel gravitation.
2) Emprically falsify theory's prediction with observation. You
are looking in the wrong place, Pentcho,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

You left out 3). Show that the theory is mathematicially incosistent.
An inconsistent formal system implies -any- conclusion.
Bob Kolker

Sure - that is why we have anonymous peer review. The metastatic
atrocity that is string theory is entirely rigorous and
self-consistent. It's simply useless and not physics for not making
any testable predictions. String theory demands BRST invariance to
unite the effects of a massive body and an accelerated reference
frame. Provide a reproducible violation of the Equivalence Principle
and string theory is empirically falsified at the founding postulate
level (ditto General Relativity). Making no testable predictions
won't save string theory (except perhaps the chiral part).

Prior observation is a ridiculous number of significant figures in a
huge assortment of venues on scales from 20 TeV smallness to cosmic
bigness. Finding a chink in that armor is... easy. Physics knew how
to do it in the early 1920s. Nobody knows if the vacuum is chiral
(teleparallel gravitation, spacetime torsion, Weitzenböck spacetime
A^4) in the massed sector. If the vacuum is chiral that way it will
have no effect on EM or achiral or racemic mass distributions. The
chink in the armor! Only oppositely chiral mass distributions will be
affected, and then to less than 10^(-12) relative. State of the art
measurement is 3x10^(-14) relative in an Eotvos balance - the parity
Eotvos experiment in quartz. Parity calorimetry should be good to
3x10^(-18) absolute difference. There are no natural resolved
opposite parity mass distributions. The real world is dirty an
disordered overall.

I've been approached by academics with "HOW DO YOU KNOW QUARTZ IS
CHIRAL?" These are folks who cannot look into an ORTEP diagram and
see 3-D. It's like arguing with blue mud.

1) Enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 are chiral mass
distributions no matter what is in them,
Helvetica Chimica Acta 86 905 (2003)
2) Petitjean's QCM calculates it as the most extreme case of parity
divergence,
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
Loading Image...
3) Avnir calculates it so,
Chem. Mater. 15, 464 (2003)
Acta Cryst. B60 163 (2004)
Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 17 2723 (2006)

Optical rotation is not an indicator of mass distribution chirality in
th solid state,

J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)
Electric polarization tensors are orthogonal to thermal ellipsoids
J. Chem. Phys. 65(4) 1522 (1976)
If optical chirality mattered quartz is very good, but... optical
chirality trivially does not measure mass distribution chirality,

Loading Image...

Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with non-polar *achiral* tetragonal space
group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power:
522°/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm.

You can drown them in examples of what is supported and
counterexamples of what is not supported. One ivory tower don thinks
chirality is screws - but not the screw axes in quartz or the
molecular helices in benzil. Machine screws! We knew better than
that in 1848 with Pasteur and tartrates.

Physics needs something present-day detectable to

1) Power inflation after the Big Bang
2) Select matter over anti-matter
3) Source 100% left-handed weak interaction
4) Source 100% homochiral biology (chiral protein L-amino acids;
natural D-sugars)
5) Originate in orthodox theory
6) Not contradict prior observations
(7) Exclude some of the 10^1000 allowable string theory vacua, say
~10^1000 of them.

Here it is! (or at least could be - somebody should look) "Not from
yoooou!" Fine. We're gearing up for another parity calorimetry
experiment in benzil this coming Christmas in DSCs fresh from the
assembly line that meet OEM specs. I *will* know the answer - Do left
and right shoes vacuum free fall identically?

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.