|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
From Newton to Einstein: A forgotten relativistic optics of moving bodies Jean Eisenstaedt Observatoire de Paris, SYRTE/UMR8630-CNRS, 61 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France (Received 26 April 2006; accepted 27 April 2007) Since the time of Galileo, the relativity of motion has been a central issue in physics. But how does it apply to light? At the end of the 18th century, a Newtonian theory of the propagation of light, a natural extension of Newton's Principia, was developed but quickly forgotten. A series of works completed the Principia with the formulation of a Galilean relativistic optics of moving bodies and the discovery of the analog of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some 60 years before Doppler, as well as many other effects and ideas that are a fascinating preamble to Einstein's special and general relativity. ©2007 American Association of Physics Teachers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
Sorry I somehow sent the message before I could finish it. The full
version: The American Journal of Physics has just published the following: link.aip.org/link/?AJPIAS/75/741/1 American Journal of Physics From Newton to Einstein: A forgotten relativistic optics of moving bodies Jean Eisenstaedt Observatoire de Paris, SYRTE/UMR8630-CNRS, 61 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France (Received 26 April 2006; accepted 27 April 2007) Since the time of Galileo, the relativity of motion has been a central issue in physics. But how does it apply to light? At the end of the 18th century, a Newtonian theory of the propagation of light, a natural extension of Newton's Principia, was developed but quickly forgotten. A series of works completed the Principia with the formulation of a Galilean relativistic optics of moving bodies and the discovery of the analog of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some 60 years before Doppler, as well as many other effects and ideas that are a fascinating preamble to Einstein's special and general relativity. ©2007 American Association of Physics Teachers I don't have access to the full text of the paper but judging from another paper by Eisenstaedt, Einstein's light postulate http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is replaced by its negation: http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende 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 lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... 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." The American Journal of Physics could also have published the following confession of Einstein's: Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The American Journal of Physics could also have published the following confession of Einstein's: Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement of the scientific method. However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment so far." - Randy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
On 10 Sept, 16:32, Randy Poe wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The American Journal of Physics could also have published the following confession of Einstein's: Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement of the scientific method. However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment so far." How about this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.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." Is it a confession? Just think: As far as the speed of light is concerned, the field concept of light (light as continuous structures) is incorrect; the speed of light is c'=c+v (c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer) as predicted by Newton's corpuscular theory of light (light as discontinuous structures). And Einstein tells you: nothing remains of his castle in the air, nothing of the rest of contemporary physics, and the number of bellicose zombies repeating that relativity "agrees with experiment so far" simply does not matter. Isn't that impressive? Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
Dear Pentcho Valev:
On Sep 10, 6:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: .... How about this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... 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." Is it a confession? It is an acknowledgement of a basic scientific fact. And note that Einstein also puts Newton and Newtonian gravitation in the same place. Just think: As far as the speed of light is concerned, the field concept of light (light as continuous structures) is incorrect; Not "incorrect". Is "castle in the air". the speed of light is c'=c+v (c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer) as predicted by Newton's corpuscular theory of light (light as discontinuous structures). No anisotropy detected, using the Moon as a shutter, and sources with a z of 4 or more as the moving light source. Nature rules, and corpuscles need refinement. And Einstein tells you: And you. nothing remains of his castle in the air, nothing of the rest of contemporary physics, Including Newton. and the number of bellicose zombies repeating that relativity "agrees with experiment so far" simply does not matter. Isn't that impressive? It is amazing to me that you spend so much time dancing around the periphery, finding quotes that you can misunderstand / misrepresent, and never actually get bit by the "bug" of *learning Science*. There is so much beauty happening *now*, right next door, and you concentrate on what someone said, what was done yesterday. David A. Smith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
On Sep 10, 9:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 10 Sept, 16:32, Randy Poe wrote: On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: The American Journal of Physics could also have published the following confession of Einstein's: Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement of the scientific method. However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment so far." How about this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... 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." Is it a confession? No, it's another statement of the form, "my postulate may turn out to disagree with experiment, in which case the theory is wrong." Again, basic scientific method. And again, right so far. Just think: As far as the speed of light is concerned, the field concept of light (light as continuous structures) is incorrect; the speed of light is c'=c+v (c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer) as predicted by Newton's corpuscular theory of light (light as discontinuous structures). And Einstein tells you: nothing remains of his castle in the air, nothing of the rest of contemporary physics, and the number of bellicose zombies repeating that relativity "agrees with experiment so far" simply does not matter. Isn't that impressive? It doesn't matter how many people say "agrees with experiment". What matters is whether a theory agrees or doesn't. This is true of all theories. There is nothing special about relativity in this respect, despite your effort to make it a religious effort and your personal view of Einstein as some sort of demi-god. The scientific view of Einstein and his theories is: acceptable so far as it agrees with experiment. And the experimental status is: agrees so far. Just as the status of Newton's gravitation is: agrees to known precision, so it's acceptable when that's all the precision you need. Shouldn't you be complaining about "Newton zombies", since here we are 300 years later still using his theories unquestioningly? - Randy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
"Randy Poe" wrote in message ps.com... : On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: : The American Journal of Physics could also have published the : following confession of Einstein's: : : Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by : the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and : theory of gravity is false." : : It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with : experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement : of the scientific method. : : However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment : so far." : Name the experiment that shows this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif Oh wait... you said "so far" and you haven't got that far yet. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
On Sep 10, 12:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message ps.com... : On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: : The American Journal of Physics could also have published the : following confession of Einstein's: : : Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by : the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and : theory of gravity is false." : : It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with : experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement : of the scientific method. : : However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment : so far." : Name the experiment that shows this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif Oh wait... you said "so far" and you haven't got that far yet. Still struggling to figure out the difference between "stationary" and "moving", I see. - Randy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com... : On Sep 10, 12:16 pm, "Androcles" wrote: : "Randy Poe" wrote in message : : ps.com... : : On Sep 10, 7:05 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: : : The American Journal of Physics could also have published the : : following confession of Einstein's: : : : : Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by : : the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and : : theory of gravity is false." : : : : It is not a "confession" to say, "if this theory disagrees with : : experiment, then the theory is wrong." It is a basic statement : : of the scientific method. : : : : However, the status of relativity is "agrees with experiment : : so far." : : : : Name the experiment that shows this: : http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif : : Oh wait... you said "so far" and you haven't got that far yet. : : Still struggling to figure out the difference : between "stationary" and "moving", I see. Is there one? I drew both and found there is no difference. Oh wait, you hallucinate a universal stationary frame of reference with a flat Earth at the origin, don't you? Ok, Poe, what's the difference between "stationary" and "moving"? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN?
On 10 Sept, 17:20, dlzc wrote:
Dear Pentcho Valev: On Sep 10, 6:58 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: ... How about this: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.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." Is it a confession? It is an acknowledgement of a basic scientific fact. And note that Einstein also puts Newton and Newtonian gravitation in the same place. Just think: As far as the speed of light is concerned, the field concept of light (light as continuous structures) is incorrect; Not "incorrect". Is "castle in the air". the speed of light is c'=c+v (c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer) as predicted by Newton's corpuscular theory of light (light as discontinuous structures). No anisotropy detected, using the Moon as a shutter, and sources with a z of 4 or more as the moving light source. Nature rules, and corpuscles need refinement. And Einstein tells you: And you. nothing remains of his castle in the air, nothing of the rest of contemporary physics, Including Newton. Excluding Newton, as far as the implication of Newton's corpuscular theory of light according to which the speed of photons DOES depend on the speed of the light source is concerned. But why don't you comment on the original problem: Did the American Journal of Physics refute Einstein: http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes American Journal of Physics -- August 2007 -- Volume 75, Issue 8, pp. 741-746 From Newton to Einstein: A forgotten relativistic optics of moving bodies Jean Eisenstaedt Observatoire de Paris, SYRTE/UMR8630-CNRS, 61 avenue de l'Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France Since the time of Galileo, the relativity of motion has been a central issue in physics. But how does it apply to light? At the end of the 18th century, a Newtonian theory of the propagation of light, a natural extension of Newton's Principia, was developed but quickly forgotten. A series of works completed the Principia with the formulation of a Galilean relativistic optics of moving bodies and the discovery of the analog of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some 60 years before Doppler, as well as many other effects and ideas that are a fascinating preamble to Einstein's special and general relativity. ©2007 American Association of Physics Teachers Elsewhere the same Jean Eisenstaedt writes: http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende 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 lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... 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." The following references are also relevant: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#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." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A RACE TO REFUTE RELATIVITY IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 23rd 07 05:35 PM |
A RACE TO REFUTE RELATIVITY IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT | Androcles[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 23rd 07 01:56 PM |
A RACE TO REFUTE RELATIVITY IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT | G. L. Bradford | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 23rd 07 11:40 AM |
EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT MAY RESURRECT PHYSICS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | July 17th 07 07:31 PM |
Int. Journal of Modern Physics D - TOC alert | YH Khoo | Research | 0 | October 1st 03 11:40 PM |