|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=10745
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Un siècle après son émergence, la théorie de la relativité est encore bien mal comprise - et pas seulement par les profanes ! Le vocable même qui la désigne (« relativité ») est fort inadéquat. Ses énoncés courants abondent en maladresses sémantiques, et donc en confusions épistémologiques. Paradoxe majeur, cette théorie, présentée comme un sommet de la modernité scientifique, garde de nombreux traits primitifs. Or, de récentes recherches montrent éloquemment qu'un sérieux approfondissement de ses concepts et de ses formulations peut résulter du retour à ses origines, avant même Einstein. Déjà le principe de relativité se comprend mieux si on le détache de la forme nouvelle qu'il prit après Lorentz, Poincaré et Einstein, pour le ressourcer chez Galilée et Descartes. Mais surtout, l'examen de nombreux travaux des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, injustement oubliés, met en évidence une théorie particulaire de la lumière, en germe dans la physique newtonienne, qui ouvre des voies d'approche négligées vers la théorie moderne. Ces considérations contrebalancent utilement le point de vue ondulatoire traditionnel, et allègent ses difficultés." C'était un teste en 2005: Si je commence à dire la vérité, est-ce qu'il y aura plus d'argent? La réponse était immédiate et précise: Il n'y aura AUCUN argent. Et Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond se vit condamné à mentir toute sa vie. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092
The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities." Olivier Darrigol, You share Poincaré's point of view don't you. This is the point of view of any sane person: http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf "La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !" http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html "L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES." Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37 The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 33: "A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of velocities. The velocity of a light corpuscle is the sum of the velocity of its source, of its emission velocity, and of the velocity of its observer; as a consequence it cannot be constant. Such an optics of moving bodies has quite the same structure as Einstein's special relativity - the Galileo transformations having of course to be replaced by Lorentz transformations." Jean Eisenstaedt, "The same structure as Einstein's special relativity" camouflage will not work in the long run. But it could initially mask the fraudulent nature of Einsteiniana - e.g. "We were not lying, we were just misled by the fact that, even though false, special relativity is equivalent to the emission theory". Still I think the camouflage is too naïve - Einsteinians should just put ashes on their heads and disappear in some wormhole. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
Jean Eisenstaedt,
Le "Séminaire d'histoire de l'astronomie/relativité" n'est que "Séminaire d'histoire de l'astronomie" depuis deux ans: http://syrte.obspm.fr/~jee/ "Séminaire d'histoire de l'astronomie/relativité" http://syrte.obspm.fr/~jee/seminaires-2011-2012.htm "Observatoire de Paris. Séminaire d'histoire de l'astronomie" Pourquoi avez-vous supprimé la relativité, Jean Eisenstaedt? Elle n'existe plus pour vous? Einstein est devenu un nonêtre? Vive la théorie de l'émission? http://wikilivres.info/wiki/1984/Pre...ie/Chapitre_IV George Owell: "Withers, cependant, était déjà un nonêtre. Il n'existait pas, il n'avait jamais existé." Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
Jean Eisenstaedt,
Ma proposition de 2008 reste ouverte (maintenant vous comprenez mieux que le problème de la variation de la vitesse de la lumière dans un champ de gravitation est crucial): http://groups.google.com/group/fr.sc...adde4dbfd1f031 Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37 The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt, p. 34: "Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms." Jean Eisenstaedt, Which "taken-for-granted fact" did not allow thinking in arithmetic terms in Big Brother's world: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7 George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" That the velocity of light relative to the observer cannot be constant is just as obvious as 2+2=4: http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP
http://www.amazon.com/Curious-Histor...ion/0691118655
The Curious History of Relativity: How Einstein's Theory of Gravity Was Lost and Found Again, Jean Eisenstaedt pp. 17-19: "If, as Michelson's experiments showed, this theorem of the addition of speeds is not valid, in particular for light, then something is not right with our initial assumptions. (...) The most convincing solution physicists will find will be special relativity. Not much will remain of our initial hypotheses: neither Newton's absolute time nor the definition of speed will survive. But, above all, in this new kinematics a new physical constant will appear, c. It will no longer be possible to add two speeds without the intervention of c. No kinematics will be possible without c; no physics will be possible without c." Jean Eisenstaedt? A terrible mistake? The Michelson's experiment did not show that? It showed just the opposite (confirmed Newton's emission theory of light in 1887)? Are you sorry? You humbly apologize with every due respect for any mutilation of readers' minds your lies might have caused? Did the book sell well? The money? Stays with you? You need it so much? Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 3rd 08 09:38 AM |
FAT RATS HAVE ALREADY LEFT THE SINKING SHIP | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 19th 08 11:49 AM |
C/2002 T7 16 Jan 04 Sinking Fast! | Dennis Persyk | CCD Imaging | 0 | February 16th 04 06:39 PM |