#1
|
|||
|
|||
Paradoxes
On Mar 24, 9:45*pm, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity: * * * * As I have often said around here, IMHO the foundation of * * * * SR is merely as the local limit of GR (i.e. there's no need to * * * * support Einstein's original postulates). Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! Einstein zombie world should forget Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and pay no attention to what careless Einsteinians write from time to time: 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.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://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." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Relativity Paradoxes Explained | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 10th 07 10:07 AM |