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

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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

"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"?

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