A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 18th 13, 04:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

1. Walther Ritz:

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...."

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...."

2. Bryan Wallace:

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheor...-of-physics-2/
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."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...1#.UlWfDC1OJjo
Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 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..."

3. Herbert Dingle:

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

4. Halton Arp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE
Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

5. Jean-Claude Pecker:

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

George Orwell's definition of "unperson":

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.4.html
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 21st 13, 04:23 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

http://www.sphere.univ-paris-diderot...php?article198
Olivier Darrigol, "Electrodynamics in the physics of Walther Ritz," in Jean-Claude Pont (ed.), Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz, physicien théoricien de génie (Sion : Vallesia, 2012), 207-240.

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."

Olivier Darrigol,

Walther Ritz was right? The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source after all? What did you say in "Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz, physicien théoricien de génie"? The other Ritzian in REHSEIS, Jan Lacki? What did he say in that book? How many Ritzians are there in Einsteiniana? But where are you? Olivier Darrigol? Olivier Darrigol:

http://skipper810.files.wordpress.co...uldsharia1.png

Ritzians in Einsteiniana:

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images...es/f_pic31.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 21st 13, 06:03 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

Four more Ritzians (Newtonians) in Einsteiniana: Alberto Martinez, Jan Lacki, James Espinosa and Jean Eisenstaedt:

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."

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."

http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~jaliff/GAJSci64-1.pdf
"THE LAST OF THE NEWTONIANS: WALTER RITZ, James Espinosa, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA 30118. 2005 was declared the World Year of Physics by the United Nations in order to celebrate the life and work of Albert Einstein, who helped give birth to a new age of physics. It also marks the 100th anniversary of the end of the Newtonian world view. Walter Ritz who was a classmate of Albert Einstein was the last successful Newtonian scientist of the twentieth century. A biographical sketch of his life will be given. Two great pieces of work, which have been forgotten by modern physicists but received much serious attention by his contemporaries, are the magnetic model of the atom and the emission theory of electromagnetism. The first body of work challenged quantum theory and the other challenged Einstein's special theory of relativity. A brief description of these two areas of work will be presented."

http://culture.univ-lille1.fr/fileadmin/lna/lna40.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel, Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "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."

Of course the Einsteinian is always stronger than the Ritzian:

http://th00.deviantart.net/fs50/PRE/...y_bigcas61.jpg

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DOUBLETHINK IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 13th 13 09:37 AM
HALF-ABSURDITIES IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 June 30th 13 06:04 PM
EDUCATION IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 7th 13 08:20 AM
TEST FOR SANITY IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 November 5th 12 07:28 AM
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 May 2nd 10 05:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.