|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699
"In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:52:00 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The fundamental problem of theoretical science: numbers |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hi. Pentcho here again. In my big Mexican Hat. It keeps the hailstonesoff the end of my toes.
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 "In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
If the speed of light DEPENDS on the speed of the light source, in
accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), that is, if it contradicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c), then the marriage of space and time devised by Minkowski will have to come to an end. "And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce": http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...s_Are_Changing "A century ago, mathematician Hermann Minkowski famously merged space with time, establishing a new foundation for physics; today physicists are rethinking how the two should fit together....Einsteins belief that time is illusory did not stem from a mere devotion to Newtonian determinism. After all, he had disregarded Newton before, rewriting the laws of motion that underpinned deterministic philosophy in the first place. In so doing, Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 "In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
On Sep 11, 7:16*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If the speed of light DEPENDS on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), that is, if it contradicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c), then the marriage of space and time devised by Minkowski will have to come to an end. "And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce": http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...It%E2%80%99s_L... "A century ago, mathematician Hermann Minkowski famously merged space with time, establishing a new foundation for physics; today physicists are rethinking how the two should fit together....Einsteins belief that time is illusory did not stem from a mere devotion to Newtonian determinism. After all, he had disregarded Newton before, rewriting the laws of motion that underpinned deterministic philosophy in the first place. In so doing, Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 "In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi.... John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev The term '''Theoretical Computer Science''' may refer to: *The field of [[theoretical computer science]]. *[[Theoretical Computer Science (journal)]], a journal covering this field. {{disambig}} THE POINT IS THE TIME HAS ARRIVED THE TERM THEORETICAL = THE JOURNAL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
A somewhat confused but still going in the right direction book by Tom
Bethell: http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Ei.../dp/0971484597 "Then what is the quarrel with Einstein? Bethell argues that special relativity theory is wrong and general relativity theory is not necessary." http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...out-relativity Can We Do Without Relativity? By Tom Bethell "SOMETHING TELLS ME THAT MY NEW BOOK -- Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? -- is unlikely to be reviewed. So I shall say something about it here. (...) The general theory gives the right answers but by a complicated and roundabout route. Meanwhile a simpler path lay at hand. But the special theory may have to be discarded because the logical consequences of its postulates do not correspond to experimental results." See also: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880 The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox Peter Hayes: "The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them." Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 "In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
On Sep 8, 3:52*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? That's about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001% of "the fundamental problem of theoretical science". Get a life. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
The solution to the fundamental problem of theoretical science offered
by Einsteiniana's highest priests: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." Are the concepts of time dilation and length contraction, Einsteiniana's most famous miracles, results of "derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity"? Or, perhaps, "the evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way" their validity? For more than 30 years no one has asked any such question and, accordingly, Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond sees no reason why he should answer. At present the most serious discussion of Einstein's relativity in France is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN4DthXDu68 Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.thevarsity.ca/article/19699 "In the 1920s, experiments firmly proved the duality in light: it behaves as both wave and particle. This dual nature caused Einstein to remark in 1924 on the new puzzle posed by his own findings: "There are now two theories of light, both indispensable...without any logical connection." The fundamental problem of theoretical science: Is the speed of light consistent with the particle theory (Newton's emission theory of light) or is it consistent with the wave theory of light? More precisely, does the speed of light depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source), or is it independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate: c'=c), in accordance with the wave theory? Relevant quotations: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." 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." James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp. 39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE. IL LE POSTULA PAR PURE NECESSITE LOGIQUE." 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." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576 John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles." Albert Einstein 1954: "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." John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v." An experiment that UNEQUIVOCALLY shows that the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light is correct whereas the equation c'=c (Einstein's 1905 light postulate) is false is the Pound-Rebka experiment. Needless to say, in the era of Postscientism any such experiment is worshipped as a glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond disturbs Einsteiniana's serenity:
http://ebook30.com/science/mathemati...elativity.html "My first remark is that I cannot understand the reason why textbooks in English (as this one) insist in deriving the Lorentz transformation using Einstein's second postulate on the speed of light: as already pointed out by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 44, pp. 271-277, 1976), this second postulate is not only superfluous but also epistemological misleading..." Pentcho Valev wrote: The solution to the fundamental problem of theoretical science offered by Einsteiniana's highest priests: http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." Are the concepts of time dilation and length contraction, Einsteiniana's most famous miracles, results of "derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity"? Or, perhaps, "the evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way" their validity? For more than 30 years no one has asked any such question and, accordingly, Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond sees no reason why he should answer. At present the most serious discussion of Einstein's relativity in France is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN4DthXDu68 Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF COSMOLOGY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 9th 09 10:45 AM |
HOW THEORETICAL SCIENCE DIED | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | May 20th 08 09:58 AM |
DIGNITARIES AND THE DEATH OF THEORETICAL SCIENCE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 7th 07 03:51 PM |
Highest theoretical magnification? | Highland | Misc | 8 | August 13th 04 06:56 PM |