|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON
Einsteiniana is again trying to get rid of itself (a snake eating its
tail): http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Beyond Einstein 22 - 26 September 2008 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz I think this time Jean Eisenstaedt, Einsteiniana's hindsight expert, will be able to convince his brothers that there is Newton, Newton and again Newton beyond Einstein: http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Fran£cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH." Eisenstaedt's last statement is, of course, a blatant lie ("honest Einsteinian" is an oxymoron) but the rest of the text goes in the right direction, perhaps because Eisenstaedt does not fully understand what he is doing. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON
Pentcho Valev a écrit :
Einsteiniana is again trying to get rid of itself (a snake eating its tail): http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Beyond Einstein 22 - 26 September 2008 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz I think this time Jean Eisenstaedt, Einsteiniana's hindsight expert, will be able to convince his brothers that there is Newton, Newton and again Newton beyond Einstein: http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Franёcois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH." Eisenstaedt's last statement is, of course, a blatant lie ("honest Einsteinian" is an oxymoron) but the rest of the text goes in the right direction, perhaps because Eisenstaedt does not fully understand what he is doing. Pentcho Valev je suis un barbare puissant, créateur de prolapsus particulièrement pénibles |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON
On Sep 25, 12:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana is again trying to get rid of itself (a snake eating its tail): http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Beyond Einstein 22 - 26 September 2008 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz I think this time Jean Eisenstaedt, Einsteiniana's hindsight expert, will be able to convince his brothers that there is Newton, Newton and again Newton beyond Einstein: http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Fran£cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH." Eisenstaedt's last statement is, of course, a blatant lie ("honest Einsteinian" is an oxymoron) but the rest of the text goes in the right direction, perhaps because Eisenstaedt does not fully understand what he is doing. Elsewhere Jean Eisenstaedt is even clearer: http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la lumière ne dépende 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 lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." So, if John Stachel has helped him, Jean Eisenstaedt may indeed have convinced his brothers that Newton's emission theory of light should be reintroduced: http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang': How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel, Einstein from "B" to "Z". "This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was applying them to the apparently quite different field of electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem; nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the two." http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances." Perhaps all godfathers in Einstein criminal cult will soon do what John Baez has already done: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track — but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
BEYOND EINSTEIN: EISENSTAEDT AND NEWTON
On Sep 27, 12:04 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 25, 12:42 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote: Einsteiniana is again trying to get rid of itself (a snake eating its tail): http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Beyond Einstein 22 - 26 September 2008 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz I think this time Jean Eisenstaedt, Einsteiniana's hindsight expert, will be able to convince his brothers that there is Newton, Newton and again Newton beyond Einstein: http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light -- which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and Fran£cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH." Eisenstaedt's last statement is, of course, a blatant lie ("honest Einsteinian" is an oxymoron) but the rest of the text goes in the right direction, perhaps because Eisenstaedt does not fully understand what he is doing. Elsewhere Jean Eisenstaedt is even clearer: http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la lumière ne dépende 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 lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther." In fact, the above text makes Jean Eisenstaedt a historical figure because for the first time an Einsteinian gives, explicitly, the whole truth about Einstein's relativity. Translation: Jean Eisenstaedt: "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?" The only problem is that Eisenstaedt presents the dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the light source as an idea of Arago's, and although the rest of the paper suggests that Eisenstaedt does share this idea, he is still not explicit about that. The problem will be resolved on May 20, 2009: http://syrte.obspm.fr/~jee/ Séminaire d'histoire de l'astronomie/relativité. Séminaires 2008-2009 . http://syrte.obspm.fr/~jee/seminaires-2008-2009.htm 20 mai 2009 : Jean Eisenstaedt, Chercheur au Syrte, Observatoire de Paris. "Arago et la vitesse de la lumière (1806-1810)". So Einstein zombie world can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" before May 20, 2009 but on that day Jean Eisenstaedt will declare that singing should stop forever. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Einstein destroyed both Newton and Maxwell | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | October 9th 08 01:50 PM |
FROM NEWTON TO EINSTEIN OR FROM EINSTEIN TO NEWTON? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 1st 07 01:07 PM |
Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 13 | March 15th 05 09:16 AM |
Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | March 15th 05 08:28 AM |
Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton | [email protected] | News | 0 | March 5th 05 02:40 AM |