HENRI POINCARE AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_55_1_2143
Vincent Borella: Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à
la diffusion de la relativité?
p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la
lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est
mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est
suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière
ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se
propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

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."

Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track. The
speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of
the observer:

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.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.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

On Nov 7, 4:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home...rhs_0151-4105_...
Vincent Borella: Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à
la diffusion de la relativité?
p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la
lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est
mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est
suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière
ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se
propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

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."

Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track. The
speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of
the observer:

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.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...ers%20son/Effe...
"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.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

Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track, Ritz
had reached the truth:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems
possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we
should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light
is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative
velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we
should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion
of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians know no limits:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...110.0521v2.pdf
OPERA neutrinos and relativity
Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, Laurent Freidel, Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, Lee
Smolin
"Before we begin such an analysis it is crucial to recall that Lorentz
invariance can be superseded in two ways. It can be "broken" in the
sense that there is a preferred frame of reference. Or it can be
"deformed", so that the principle of relativity of inertial frames is
preserved, but the action of Lorentz transformations on physical
states is deformed."

"Broken" (that is, abandoned) in the absence of a preferred frame of
reference is an unpossibility. Newton's emission theory of light is an
untheory. Walther Ritz is an unperson:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not
exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Ritz was not an unperson during his lifetime but Bryan Wallace was:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...9-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) 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. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace
wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections
in the text!]

Pentcho Valev

Lee Smolin knows "how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a
new version of special relativity":

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

Smolin's hints at a modification of Einstein's 1905 false constant-
speed-of-light postulate go too far. True, selected priests in
Einsteiniana are allowed to "deform" special relativity (Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is to show signs of revolutionary development
from time to time) but nobody, absolutely nobody, is entitled to put
at risk the essential absurd implication of the sacrosanct false
postulate - that the speed of light (relative to the observer) is
independent of the speed of the observer:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...004.0418v1.pdf
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Modifications of special relativity have
recently obtained increased attention since measurements of gamma ray
bursts observed by the Fermi Space Telescope have now reached a
precision high enough to test an energy-dependence of the speed of
light to first order in the photon's energy over the Planck mass.
While such modifications could also be caused by an actual breaking of
Lorentz-invariance that introduces a preferred frame, Lorentz-
invariance breaking is subject to many other constraints already. This
makes deformations of special relativity (DSR), that preserve observer-
independence and do not introduce a preferred frame, the prime
candidate for an energy-dependent speed of light."

Pentcho Valev

Schizophrenic science (the absence of any reaction to the following
texts would be unthinkable in a world different from Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world):

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the
Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226:
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and
universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true
and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have
had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized
until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you
changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a
Scientific Speculation, p. 250:
"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many
months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South
Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL
THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted
from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or
E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied
the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all
observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects.
Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out
all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than
special relativity."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/bhp/pdf/hp1909rs.pdf
LA MECANIQUE NOUVELLE, 1909
Henri Poincaré: "Vous connaissez le phénomène de l'aberration des
étoiles fixes en vertu duquel les étoiles sont vues, non pas dans la
direction de la vitesse absolue du rayon lumineux qu'elles nous
envoient, mais dans celle de la VITESSE RELATIVE DE CE RAYON PAR
RAPPORT A LA TERRE."

Clearly, for Poincaré, the speed of light (relative to the observer)
varies with the speed of the observer. Needless to say, this
contradicts "la mécanique nouvelle" and Poincaré would have discovered
the contradiction if he had not died prematurely. The only theory
predicting this particular variation and obeying the principle of
relativity is Newton's emission theory of light.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_55_1_2143
Vincent Borella: Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à
la diffusion de la relativité?
p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la
lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est
mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est
suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière
ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se
propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

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."

Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track. The
speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of
the observer:

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.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.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

The idea that the wavelength varies with the speed of the observer (so
that Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity") is so absurd that only
"the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" in Einsteiniana are
entitled to express it explicitly:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Ordinary Einsteinians are not allowed even to think of the moving
observer scenario. Yet sometimes they forget the ban and defend Divine
Albert's Divine Theory in the following way (the University of South
Carolina deleted the site eventually):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

Pentcho Valev

http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luminet/jumeaux_VF.pdf
Jean-Pierre Luminet: "La vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est la
même pour tous les observateurs, quel que soit leur état de mouvement
- il s'agit d'un fait observé dont Einstein est parti pour construire
sa théorie."

Fait observé dont Einstein est parti? Vraiment? James Smith raconte
une autre histoi

http://www.amazon.fr/James-Smith-Int.../dp/B0014P9USI
James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité"
"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."

Evidemment vous mentez, Jean-Pierre Luminet. Pourquoi? La vérité est
interdite dans l'Ordre des Illuminati?

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home..._num_55_1_2143
Vincent Borella: Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à
la diffusion de la relativité?
p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la
lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est
mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est
suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière
ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se
propage, à savoir l'éther supposé immobile."

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."

Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track. The
speed of light (relative to the observer) does vary with the speed of
the observer:

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.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.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