|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...." (...) Einstein's theory garnered prestigious supporters such as Planck, Sommerfeld, and Wien, who endorsed and protected it from the attacks of others, while Ritz's theory acquired no supporters. Ehrenfest and Tolman called for unambiguous empirical evidence to test Ritz's emission theory, but neither spent any effort in extending it, and soon they both epoused Einstein's theory unreservedly, especially following de Sitter's work. For a few years immediately following its publication, Ritz's theory may have seemed to be an odd and complicated curiosity, in comparison to the leading approaches in electrodynamics. Ritz, the one man who had both the skill and the motivation to advance it, had died. (...) I thank OLIVIER DARRIGOL, Paul Forman, Michel Janssen, John Stachel, and Roger H. Stuewer for their helpful comments and assistance." http://www.waltherritz.ch/fichiers/fascicule_ritz.pdf "Mais d'autres difficultés menaçaient dangereusement le monde de la physique (optique, électrodynamique). Plusieurs physiciens de génie étaient engagés dans cette lutte (Lorenz, Poincaré, Einstein) et Walther Ritz fut de leur niveau, apportant des idées qui font de lui un protagoniste majeur dans cette épopée. Malheureusement, ses travaux en la matière remontent aux derniers mois de sa vie et il ne fut pas en mesure d'éprouver et de développer les fruits de sa prodigieuse imagination physique et mathématique. C'est ce destin douloureux d'un physicien de génie, ce beau visage d'un savant de haut parage et apprécié de ses contemporains, que nous entendons rappeler et présenter à l'occasion des trois journées que nous lui consacrons avec la Société valaisanne de physique." Olivier Darrigol: "Ritz est l'auteur d'une tentative célèbre de concilier l'électrodynamique et le principe de relativité dans une théorie qui fait dépendre la vitesse de la lumière de celle de sa source. Il fut aussi impliqué dans un débat avec Einstein sur la signification des potentiels en électrodynamique." Olivier Darrigol, Walther Ritz n'est jamais mentionné aux séminaires du REHSEIS que vous organisez: http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article570=fr De l'usage de lhistoire dans les sciences physiques Responsables : Nadine de Courtenay, Olivier Darrigol, Sara Franceschelli, Jan Lacki L'objectif de ce séminaire est d'examiner dans quelle mesure et de quelles manières les physiciens font appel à lhistoire de leur discipline. http://www.rehseis.cnrs.fr/spip.php?article335=fr "...les héritiers de James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann et Henri Poincaré soulignent les vertus épistémiques dune diversité des descriptions et considèrent que décrire est un acte dont la dynamique transcende les objets originels de la description. Le projet « Modes, niveaux et ordres de descriptions dans les sciences physiques » s'inscrit dans la lignée de cette seconde attitude. Il se propose d'explorer la manière dont les diverses sortes de descriptions affectent notre capacité à résoudre des problèmes concrets, nous poussent à étudier de nouvelles sortes de phénomènes et suggèrent de nouveaux objets physiques. Comme les moyens de description d'un physicien dépendent évidemment des cultures matérielle et intellectuelle dans lesquelles il est immergé, cette approche devrait faire ressortir les dimensions historiques de nos capacités cognitives." Êtes-vous un héritier de Walther Ritz, Olivier Darrigol? Est-ce qu'il est un nonêtre en France? http://wikilivres.info/wiki/1984/Pre...ie/Chapitre_IV George Owell: "Withers, cependant, était déjà un nonêtre. Il n'existait pas, il n'avait jamais existé." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
"In April, Henri Poincaré visited him to apologize personally in the name of the Paris Academy of Sciences for not awarding him its Prix Vaillant for a paper he had submitted for a mathematical competition, promising that this injustice would be repaired. And just at this time also, as noted above, Ritz had engaged Einstein in a discussion on the blackbody radiation problem and the principles underlying the theory of radiation. All of this while Ritz was desperately ill with tuberculosis." Olivier Darrigol, if you are a heir of both Ritz (secretly) and Poincaré (openly), you should be able to imagine what would have happened to Divine Albert (still "Albert the Plagiarist" in those early times) if Ritz had not been "desperately ill with tuberculosis" and Poincaré had not died soon afterwards. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
According to Walther Ritz, the speed of light does depend on the speed
of the light source, that is, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. Poincaré has no explicit reference to the dependence/independence of the speed of light but: http://www.brera.unimi.it/sisfa/atti/1998/giannetto.pdf Henri Poincaré: "...les termes du second ordre auraient dû devenir sensibles, et cependant le résultat [de l'expérience de Michelson- Morley] a encore été négatif, la théorie de Lorentz laissant prévoir un résultat positif. On a alors imaginé une hypothèse supplémentai tous les corps subiraient un raccourcissement dans le sens du mouvement de la Terre... cette étrange propriété semblerait un véritable coup de pouce donné par la nature pour éviter que le mouvement de la Terre puisse être révélé par des phénomènes optiques. Ceci ne saurait me satisfaire et je crois devoir dire ici mon sentiment: je considère comme très problables que les phénomènes optiques ne dépendent que des mouvements relatifs des corpes matériels en presence...et cela non pas aux quantités près de l'ordre du carré ou du cube de l'aberration, mais rigouresement." The above text amounts to advancing two premises: Premise 1: There is no length contraction. Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true. Poincaré's two premises entail the following conclusion: Conclusion: The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, that is, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. See also Banesh Hoffmann's confession: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." Pentcho Valev wrote: https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf "In April, Henri Poincaré visited him to apologize personally in the name of the Paris Academy of Sciences for not awarding him its Prix Vaillant for a paper he had submitted for a mathematical competition, promising that this injustice would be repaired. And just at this time also, as noted above, Ritz had engaged Einstein in a discussion on the blackbody radiation problem and the principles underlying the theory of radiation. All of this while Ritz was desperately ill with tuberculosis." Olivier Darrigol, if you are a heir of both Ritz (secretly) and Poincaré (openly), you should be able to imagine what would have happened to Divine Albert (still "Albert the Plagiarist" in those early times) if Ritz had not been "desperately ill with tuberculosis" and Poincaré had not died soon afterwards. Pentcho Valev |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
Henri Poincaré on his way towards Newton's emission theory of light
(only his early death prevented him from adopting Walther Ritz's approach): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=404936&c=2 "The French polymath Henri Poincare, charged with producing a keynote address on the state of physics and the problems the discipline faced, warned of the need to root out dangerous hypotheses. In an extended discussion of electrodynamics, and of Hendrik Lorentz's hypothesis of length contraction by bodies in relative motion, Poincare raised the prospect that the ether must be abandoned as an unsupported hypothesis. He discussed the principle of relative motion in his 1900 papers, and named it the principle of relativity in 1904, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest. You'll not find that information in many undergraduate textbooks. Einstein, then aged just 21, was not in Paris (he was finishing his finals), but Poincare's paper was published in the leading German physics journal." Les élucubrations des Einsteiniens: http://inac.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...343/t343_1.pdf Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji: "Chez Poincaré, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées sont réelles.....Chez Einstein, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées ne sont pas réelles: elles sont le résultat d'un effet de perspective." Pentcho Valev wrote: According to Walther Ritz, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, that is, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. Poincaré has no explicit reference to the dependence/independence of the speed of light but: http://www.brera.unimi.it/sisfa/atti/1998/giannetto.pdf Henri Poincaré: "...les termes du second ordre auraient dû devenir sensibles, et cependant le résultat [de l'expérience de Michelson- Morley] a encore été négatif, la théorie de Lorentz laissant prévoir un résultat positif. On a alors imaginé une hypothèse supplémentai tous les corps subiraient un raccourcissement dans le sens du mouvement de la Terre... cette étrange propriété semblerait un véritable coup de pouce donné par la nature pour éviter que le mouvement de la Terre puisse être révélé par des phénomènes optiques. Ceci ne saurait me satisfaire et je crois devoir dire ici mon sentiment: je considère comme très problables que les phénomènes optiques ne dépendent que des mouvements relatifs des corpes matériels en presence...et cela non pas aux quantités près de l'ordre du carré ou du cube de l'aberration, mais rigouresement." The above text amounts to advancing two premises: Premise 1: There is no length contraction. Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true. Poincaré's two premises entail the following conclusion: Conclusion: The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, that is, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. See also Banesh Hoffmann's confession: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768 "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "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." https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf "In April, Henri Poincaré visited him to apologize personally in the name of the Paris Academy of Sciences for not awarding him its Prix Vaillant for a paper he had submitted for a mathematical competition, promising that this injustice would be repaired. And just at this time also, as noted above, Ritz had engaged Einstein in a discussion on the blackbody radiation problem and the principles underlying the theory of radiation. All of this while Ritz was desperately ill with tuberculosis." Olivier Darrigol, if you are a heir of both Ritz (secretly) and Poincaré (openly), you should be able to imagine what would have happened to Divine Albert (still "Albert the Plagiarist" in those early times) if Ritz had not been "desperately ill with tuberculosis" and Poincaré had not died soon afterwards. Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all current developments in physical science, theoretical and experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the universe. To continue to use the theory without discrimination, therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable scale... (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those [Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics, displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION, INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ." Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Walther Ritz au REHSEIS
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "In Maxwell's theory, a light wave in a vacuum always propagates at the same speed, c, with respect to the ether. So measuring the speed of a light beam gives observers an easy way to determine their motion in the ether. If they find the light to move at c, the observers are at rest in the ether. If they find the light frozen, they are moving at c in the ether. Since observers can determine their absolute motion, the theory violates the principle of relativity. The alternative theory that Einstein began to pursue was an "emission theory." In such a theory, the speed of light in vacuo is still c. But it is not c with respect to the ether; it is c with respect to the source that emits the light. In such a theory, observing the speed of a light beam tells observers nothing about their absolute motion. It only reveals their motion with respect to the source that emitted the light. If they find the beam to propagate at c, the observers are at rest with respect to the emitter. If they find the beam to be frozen, they are fleeing from the source at c. In general, observers can only ascertain their relative velocity with respect to the source. A distinctive property of this emission theory is that there is no single velocity of light; the velocity will vary according to the velocity of the emitter. (...) That fact, presumably encouraged Einstein to persist in his efforts to find a serviceable emission theory. Einstein persisted for years, as he recalled in a 1920 recollection (Einstein, 1920): Einstein: "The difficulty to be overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum, which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of [jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." Eventually Einstein did give up on an emission theory. There is an indication that the struggle with the emission theory was long and arduous." The struggle was "long and arduous" and continued up to 1915 because the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light (which is the true antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of- light postulate) was equivalent to the equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with phi, the gravitational potential. This latter equation was explicitly used by Einstein in the period 1907-1915; in 1960 it was confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment: http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html "The Pound-Rebka Experiment is quite complex in its technical details but in principle it is very simple. Photons of a precisely determined wavelength were emitted at the top and bottom of the 22.5-meter-high Jefferson Tower on the Harvard campus. When the photons from the top of the tower were measured at the bottom, their wavelengths were decreased (blue-shifted) by a small amount; and when photons from the bottom were measured at the top, their wavelengths were increased (red- shifted) by the same amount. Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. (...) In the drawing of tower #1, the photons are emitted with a wavelength of exactly one (=1). As they travel through the proposed gravitational "field" at the constant velocity of C, they interact with it so that the descending photons acquire mass, momentum and energy from the field and the ascending photons transfer mass, momentum and energy to the field. Thus the intrinsic wavelengths of the photons gradually change as they move through the field. The main problem with this explanation lies in the conceptualization of a physical process by which mass, momentum and energy could be either added to or subtracted from a photon without changing its velocity or angular momentum. (...) In the drawing of tower #2, the photons are emitted at a wavelength of exactly one (=1) that remains constant as they move through the gravitational "field." However, as they move thorough this field, the photons "fall" toward the earth like any other material body, so that the descending photons move at speeds increasingly greater than C, and the ascending photons move at decreasing speeds of less than C. During their time of travel (t=22.5/C=7.5052x10^(-8)s) the ascending photons slow their velocity by (v=gt=.000000736m/s) and the descending photons increase their velocity to C+.000000736m/s. The red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts in which both source and observer are in the same inertial reference frame and each photon is in a different inertial reference frame. The shifts occur because the ascending photons arrive at the observer at a relative velocity of less than C and the descending photons arrive at a velocity greater than C. This change in the photons' velocity will produce shifts in their wavelengths of the measured value of 2.5x10^(-15). (...) In the drawing of tower #3, it is proposed that gravity causes clocks at the bottom of the tower to run slower than clocks at the top. This causes the emitter to take more time to produce a photon and thus increase its wavelength by 2.5 x 10^(-15). The faster clock at the top of the tower makes the emitter produce its photons in shorter time intervals and with shorter wavelengths. While all photons move at exactly C in this example, the observer at the top of the tower would measure their velocity to be less than C and the observer at the bottom of the tower would measure their velocity to be greater than C. This is due to their clocks running at different rates." Einsteiniana's three-equivalent-and-equally-correct-explanations camouflage has an Achilles heel: The second explanation ("the photons "fall" toward the earth like any other material body") is given by Newton's emission theory and contradicts Einstein's theory. Einstein's general relativity predicts that, as photons "fall" toward the earth, their acceleration is two times greater than the acceleration of other material bodies: http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." Therefore, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed Newton's emission theory of light and refuted Einstein's general relativity. Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Meade short tube at Ritz Camera | Darren Drake | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | January 5th 04 02:40 AM |
Ritz Camera | Tom Markert | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 2nd 03 01:46 PM |