🚀 go-pugleaf

On 18 Nov, 11:38, "alainvergh...@yahoo.fr" <alainvergh...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> > 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/4_5.pdf
> > 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

> Bon dimanche à tous, sauf UN
> Alain

Mais apres le dimanche le probleme sera encore plus grave:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Est-ce que John Stachel et Jean Eisenstaedt veulent adopter les "idees
newtoniennes, simples et familieres"? Qu'en penses tu?

Pentcho Valev