A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

JEAN EISENSTAEDT AND EINSTEINIANA'S SINKING SHIP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 11, 10:54 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 15th 11, 01:20 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 15th 11, 09:14 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 16th 11, 09:06 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 16th 11, 09:54 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 16th 11, 09:50 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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  
Old December 27th 11, 03:40 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.