Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz (1878-1909), physicien théoricien de génie

https://www.vs.ch/NavigData/DS_313/M...sse%20Ritz.pdf
"Madame, Monsieur, Les Archives de l'Etat du Valais (Cahiers de Vallesia) et la Société valaisanne de Physique ont le plaisir de vous annoncer la parution de l'ouvrage "Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz (1878-1909), physicien théoricien de génie", sous la direction de Jean-Claude Pont. (....) Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein (voir les documents p. 60-70 de l'ouvrage) et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose."

http://doc.rero.ch/record/23518/file...8_1913_158.pdf
"Son électrodynamique est restée inachevée. Au cours de sa dernière maladie, l'idée de la tâche à accomplir subsiste et le soutient jusqu'à la fin. Le jour même de sa mort, le 7 juillet 1909, il dit à la soeur qui le veille: « Soignez-moi bien, ma soeur, il est si nécessaire que je vive encore quelques années pour la Science ! »"

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is 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...."

The Genius died, Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert and killed physics. Nowadays many "Einsteinians" are secret Ritzians:

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/fascicule_ritz.pdf
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."

http://www.sps.ch/fr/artikel/geschic...physicist_ 2/
Jan Lacki: "Ritz had no time to make his theory more elaborate. He died complaining that no one, even in Göttingen, was granting his views sufficient care. His emissionist views were submitted to heavy criticism and experimental tests were later realized to show their inanity. Today, with considerable hindsight, we know the end of the story and how Einstein and Planck's views shaped our contemporary physics. While few would today contest the reality of quanta or turn their back on field theory of elementary processes, it is interesting to know that the criticisms against Ritz's conceptions were shown, since then, often wanting, if not simply incorrect. It is fair to say that if Ritz's emission theory is false, it cannot be as easily dismissed as it was thought in Ritz's times."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "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...."

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

darn, and I thought taht he had had an acceptable theory,
of some thing. anyway,
where's my half of the $25.9999

Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is 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..."

IN 1908 Walther Ritz rejects the field concept (light as a continuous field of waves) because it introduces absolute motion:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.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."

In 1952 Einstein still advocates the field concept of light:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...ein_space.html
Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence. (...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description..."

In 1954 Einstein suddenly becomes honest (people often do at the end of their lives) and warns the world that the field concept might have killed physics:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
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."

Sixty years later one can ask: Is physics dead? The answer seems to be "yes", although euphemisms like "crisis within the deepest foundations of physics" are often used:

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives...077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples centres d'intérêt..."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/...lton-Ratcliffe
Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest. It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...reg_ls_physics
"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as absurd as those of any religious cult."

http://lecercle.lesechos.fr/economie...t-schizophrene
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "La physique est schizophrène (...) ...relativiste le matin, quantique le soir... mais schizophrène lorsqu'il tente de concilier les deux visions. C'est là que réside le problème fondamental de la physique d'aujourd'hui."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4144.pdf
"Looking at the past we can date and understand the reasons for the birth of science. We do not know when its twilight will occur, but the reasons for it are already in the air: after a very hot summer always come the season for the drop of leaves. (...) Science is becoming a nonsense for humanity. (...) Our science has become an animal without a soul, or it might be better to say, a colony of animals, a group of organisms which devour human efforts and do not offer anything but growth for the sake of growth."

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

Back to Einstein's 1954 confession. Needless to say, "based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" is a euphemism. Theoretical physics, being a deductive science, is actually based on well-known assumptions, some possibly related to "field concept" and "continuous structures". So if physics is going to crumble, as Einstein suggests, one of those assumptions must be false. Which one? Is there an assumption in modern physics which, on the one hand, is closely related to "field concept" and "continuous structures", and, on the other, is so important and indispensable that its falsehood can destroy a whole branch of science? The only such assumption is Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

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." [That is, Einstein based the second postulate on the concept of light as a continuous field of waves.]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

http://bourabai.narod.ru/wallace/farce05.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." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false. The speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter - a tenet of Newton's emission theory of light adopted by Ritz. Yet Ritz died and the false postulate killed physics in the end. Nowadays scientific rationality is completely destroyed and to show that physics is dead is virtually impossible. Arguments of the type "I know a dead science when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now" simply don't work. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's silly situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

http://gjl038.g.j.pic.centerblog.net/3fea2faf.jpg

Pentcho Valev

lick that bot,
only 25.9999

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "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."

This is the rational dilemma but there is an irrational alternative - one can create a monstrous centaur with a body (the principle of relativity) taken from the Newton/Ritz emission theory of light and a head (the principle of constancy of the speed of light) taken from the ether theory:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

http://bouteloup.pierre.free.fr/vulg/relge.pdf
"Considérons une fusée posée sur le sol terrestre, donc immobile dans un champ de gravitation. Déjà, à cause du principe d'équivalence, la lumière tombe vers le bas avec la même accélération qu'un caillou, vue par un observateur immobile dans la fusée."

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristi...t-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://poincare.et.la.relativite.pag...me.partie.html
Jules Leveugle: "Einstein publia un article en décembre 1907, dont les trois conclusions principales découlent directement de l'hypothèse de Planck et de sa théorie quantique : la lumière étant pesante, sa vitesse doit varier dans un champ de pesanteur, comme celle d'un corps matériel, sa fréquence doit diminuer comme son énergie h lorsque s'accroît le potentiel de gravité... (...) Dans un article de juin 1911, Einstein reprit les idées de son article de 1907, qui découlaient de l'hypothèse de Planck sur la pesanteur de l'énergie. Mais cette fois il abandonna la relativité "habituelle", d'autant plus facilement qu'il n'en était pas l'auteur, en renonçant explicitement au principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière. Et cet abandon lui permit de calculer la courbure d'un rayon lumineux dans un champ de gravitation, qu'il estima à 0,85 d'arc pour un rayon rasant le soleil, en appliquant le principe de Huygens, du mathématicien et physicien Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), valable dans les milieux d'indices de réfraction variables. Ce résultat avait, en fait, déjà été établi par l'astronome allemand Soldner en 1803, en partant de la théorie de l'émission de la lumière de Newton."

http://www.arte.tv/fr/La-relativite-...ve/856858.html
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Michell est persuadé de l'universalité de la gravitation et que la lumière doit, comme tout autre corpuscule, y être soumise. Il en déduit, en cette fin du XVIIIe siècle, qu'un corpuscule lumineux, émis par une étoile animée d'une vitesse constante, va être petit à petit freiné et sa vitesse diminuée. À tel point que, si l'étoile est très massive, le corpuscule, telle une pierre jetée en l'air, peut s'arrêter dans sa course et retomber sur l'étoile. Aussi invente-t-il ces objets étranges que Pierre-Simon Laplace nommera «corps obscurs» (car leur lumière ne peut nous en parvenir) et qui s'apparentent aux trous noirs. En 1801, s'appuyant sur ces résultats vulgarisés par Laplace, l'astronome allemand Georg von Soldner en déduira qu'un rayon lumineux peut être dévié de sa course s'il passe près d'un corps pesant. Ses résultats ne sont aucunement différents de ceux d'Einstein, qui calculera le même effet en 1911."

Tout ça... c'est vrai ? La vitesse de la lumière varie-t-elle dans un champ de gravitation ? Comme la vitesse d'un corps matériel ? Non ? Ce n'est pas un problème en France ? Pourquoi ? Etienne Klein n'en a rien dit à la télé ? Mais qu'est-ce qu'il dit ? Que l'anagramme de "Albert Einstein" est "Rien n'est établi" ? Il le dit souvent ? Très souvent ? On le paye pour ça ? Oui ? Et c'est tout ? C'est tout.

Pentcho Valev

http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bi...2003_41_69.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "J'insistai sur l'agressivité dont les relativistes avaient été, non sans raisons, l'objet. C'est que cette histoire, sans être vraiment la mienne, en expliquait fort bien les péripéties ; évidemment mon laboratoire n'était pas seul dans son cas : la situation de la théorie n'était pas brillante. L'histoire de la relativité générale était loin d'être la success-story que l'on aurait pu croire. Les mathématiques y occupaient une situation relativement enviable mais où était la physique ? Où était l'expérience ? Seuls deux tests (la déviation des rayons lumineux et l'avance du périhélie de Mercure) tenaient la rampe, mais d'une manière marginale, sans offrir aucune application positive. Le troisième test, le décalage des raies dans un champ de gravitation avait dû attendre l'expérience de Pound et Rebka en 1960 pour convaincre."

C'était un nouveau mensonge, Jean Eisenstaedt, et vous le savez très bien : l'expérience de Pound et Rebka a confirmé la théorie de l'émission de Newton:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

Rationality in Divine Albert's world is so devastated that it is even safe for Einsteinians to make career and money by advocating the Newton/Ritz emission theory of light:

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundw...WR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "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."

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Chang...dp/0817649395/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

Pentcho Valev