🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 nov, 08:44, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 17 Nov, 18:29, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bz wrote:
> > > As I have pointed out to Henri many times, (and perhaps to you),
> > > 'extinction' requires a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics
>
> > This is simply not true. Optical extinction is what makes eyeglasses and
> > other lenses work.
>
> > > it (1) reduces the entropy by 'increasing the ordering of the light'
> > > passing through a region of space (this requires both an unknown mechanism
> > > and a lot of energy)
>
> > Your argument against c+v is bogus. One can easily construct a model in
> > which the light interacts with the medium, transferring energy and
> > momentum to the medium as required. This is just a minor variation on
> > how classical electrodynamics models this process (without c+v of course).
>
> > > (2) must take energy from fast light and pass it to
> > > slow light to speed up the slow light. >
>
> > Nonsense. The individual portions of a light ray can exchange energy and
> > momentum with the medium, resulting in the light traveling at c/n
> > relative to the medium, regardless of the light's initial speed. As long
> > as the light path through the medium is significantly longer than the
> > medium's extinction length.
>
> > There are quite a few measurements for which extinction is negligible
> > that refute ballistic theories that claim light is emitted with speed
> > c+v. See the FAQ for references (more are cited in the new version
> > coming soon).
>
> > John Kennaugh said:
>
> > > I will explain extinction to you.
>
> > Your "explanation" is both confused and downright wrong. To have any
> > hope of explaining anything, you must PICK ONE THEORY and stick to it
> > throughout; you must also UNDERSTAND that theory. Then do the same for
> > another theory, if appropriate. Intermixing two theories just confuses
> > both you and your reader.
>
> > For an accurate classical explanation, see: Born and Wolf,
> > _Principles_of_Optics_.
>
> > > The basic problem is that there is no independent verification of what the source is.
>
> > Nonsense. There are several terrestrial experiments which refute
> > ballistic theory, for which the source motion is completely known. And
> > even for the observations of binaries, it is perverse to make such a
> > statement. For instance, many of the binaries are now resolved into two
> > mutually-orbiting stars using VLBI and other high-resolution instruments
> > -- YOU are not living back when DeSitter made his observations.
>
> > As for the subject of this thread: it simply is not possible to "get
> > rid" of relativity. An intelligent person would STUDY it to learn its
> > limitations, and then go look for exceptions and/or enhancements. Of
> > course a number of physicists are doing just that....
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> Yes Roberts Roberts but those physicists will kick you out of Einstein
> criminal cult soon. So far you have somehow realized and often hint
> that the future of physics is in the transition from the field concept
> of light (light as CONTINUOUS structures) to Newton's particle model
> of light (light as DISCONTINUOUS structures), although, according to
> Einstein, this transition will be awful and will involve the
> disappearance of all contemporary physics:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> Albert Einstein: "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."
>
> However you have not realized yet that Newton's particle model is
> INSEPARABLE from c'=c+v, the prediction of the emission (ballistic)
> theory, and continue to "refute" this prediction. Cleverer hypnotists
> in Einstein criminal cult are doing the opposite Roberts Roberts. They
> have a project called "The Other Einstein" where the emission theory
> is no longer refuted - rather, it is ADOPTED:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20279
> Lee Smolin: "It is also disappointing that none of the biographers
> mention the writings that lead John Stachel, the founding editor of
> the Einstein Papers project, to speak of "the other Einstein."
>
> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
> an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
> light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
> requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
> absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
> radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
> circumstances."
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
> vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
> que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
> n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
> Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
> trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
> raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
> Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
> newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
> opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
> resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
>
> Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
> the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
> the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
> there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
> Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
> concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
> reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
> don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
> what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
> end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
>
> Pentcho Valev- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Bon dimanche à tous, sauf UN
Alain