| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
01 Dec 2007 03:02:36 AM |
| Object: |
BRYAN WALLACE AGAINST JEAN-MARC LEVY-LEBLOND |
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"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!"
When Bryan Wallace wrote this he was dying in oblivion. So he could
have been prejudiced: perhaps the falsehood of Einstein's light
postulate is not so devastating, or not devastating at all, or even
favorable for modern physics. Just think: so far Einstein's special
relativity was great because it was based on two simple postulates
only. Now that one of them is false, Einstein's special relativity
turns out to be based on a single simple postulate and this makes it
even greater. Essentially, that is what a French Genius called Jean-
Marc Levy-Leblond discovered while Bryan Wallace was dying in
oblivion:
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
geniuses:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."
So Bryan Wallace was wrong whereas Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond is right.
Accordingly, dying in oblivion was what Bryan Wallace deserved whereas
the position of Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond in Einstein Criminal Cult is as
high as that of Tomas de Torquemada in the Spanish Inquisition. Jean-
Marc Levy-Lebond deserves this.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: BRYAN WALLACE AGAINST JEAN-MARC LEVY-LEBLOND |
01 Dec 2007 08:42:59 AM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
geniuses:
Snip
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
I don't think that Jong-Ping Hsu is correct about Ritz on this matter.
Ritz went to his grave preaching c+v.
http;//www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
Bob Fritzius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: BRYAN WALLACE AGAINST JEAN-MARC LEVY-LEBLOND |
02 Dec 2007 03:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 16:42, "fritz...@bellsouth.net" <fritz...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Snip
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
geniuses:
Snip
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
I don't think that Jong-Ping Hsu is correct about Ritz on this matter.
Ritz went to his grave preaching c+v.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
Bob Fritzius
This Hsu seems to be a zombie, not a hypnotist. All hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult know that the equation c'=c+v given by the
emission theory of light is correct and that it is consistent with any
relevant experiment:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
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."
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles had
been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the middle
of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of light, a
phrase I shall use. The need to explain the phenomena of interference,
diffraction and polarization of light gradually led physicists to
abandon the emission theory in favor of the competing wave theory,
previously its less-favored rival. Maxwell's explanation of light as a
type of electromagnetic wave seemed to end the controversy with a
definitive victory of the wave theory. However, if Einstein was right
(as events slowly proved he was) the story must be much more
complicated. Einstein was aware of the difficulties with Maxwell's
theory-and of the need for what we now call a quantum theory of
electromagnetic radiation-well before publishing his SRT paper. He
regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort of statistical average-of
what he did not know, of course-which worked very well to explain many
optical phenomena, but could not be used to explain all the
interactions of light and matter. A notable feature of his first light
quantum paper is that it almost completely avoids mention of the
ether, even in discussing Maxwell's theory. Giving up the ether
concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of
light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years later,
"which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission
theory of light."
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://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/educacion/fundoro/einstein_2nd/abstract_booklet_web.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from
Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and
relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John
Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation
on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the
same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to
gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light
could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put
forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect.
Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler-
Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of
the source and the observer."
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
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Evig" |
|
| Title: Re: BRYAN WALLACE AGAINST JEAN-MARC LEVY-LEBLOND |
02 Dec 2007 11:22:25 AM |
|
|
The postulate of the speed of light being the same in all reference frames
is an absurdity, It is most certainly a constant WITHIN any reference frame
but since the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity is 1/(1-V^2/C^2) and not
unity (V/L) it cannot be unchanged in the absolute sense. The ABSOLUTE
velocity of light changes as a result of a change in velocity, it only
appears to be unchanged when observed locally.
Relativistic physics woulld not be confusing if Dr. Einstein had recognized
is that what observations were showing is that matter uses the local
velocity of light to control its parameters (length, time rate, etc.) He got
the math right but screwed up the explanation. That shouldn't be a surprise
since he screwed up with his Cosmological Constant. He failed to recognize
that the expression for the cosmological constant was the same as the
expression for normal gravity except that it used the energy equivalents of
the gravitational masses involved. His use of this constant to explain a
static universe was nothing more than arbitrarily adding a negative
gravitational force to balance the normal positive force. Of course such a
postulate produced a static universe, it predicted that there was no net
gravitational field. Actually, Einstein wasn't too bright.
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a47ee915-67fe-4c2f-bc87-8fa2c78635b6@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"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!"
When Bryan Wallace wrote this he was dying in oblivion. So he could
have been prejudiced: perhaps the falsehood of Einstein's light
postulate is not so devastating, or not devastating at all, or even
favorable for modern physics. Just think: so far Einstein's special
relativity was great because it was based on two simple postulates
only. Now that one of them is false, Einstein's special relativity
turns out to be based on a single simple postulate and this makes it
even greater. Essentially, that is what a French Genius called Jean-
Marc Levy-Leblond discovered while Bryan Wallace was dying in
oblivion:
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond's discovery was confirmed by three other
geniuses:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html
Jong-Ping Hsu: "....unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing
question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory
without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining
only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was
discussed in the early years following the discovery of special
relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock
and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
http://www.physorg.com/news111075100.html
"Further, Einstein based his theories on the assumption that the speed
of light, c, is constant, and used gedanken ("thought") experiments
involving light rays to reach his conclusions. Now Joel Gannett, a
Senior Scientist in the Applied Research Area of Telcordia
Technologies in Red Bank, New Jersey, has found that Einstein didn't
have to do the work the hard way. A researcher in optical networking
technologies, Gannett has shown that the Lorentz transformations and
velocity addition law can be derived without assuming the constancy of
the speed of light, without thought experiments, and without calculus.
In this case, Einsteinian relativity could have been discovered
several centuries before Einstein."
So Bryan Wallace was wrong whereas Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond is right.
Accordingly, dying in oblivion was what Bryan Wallace deserved whereas
the position of Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond in Einstein Criminal Cult is as
high as that of Tomas de Torquemada in the Spanish Inquisition. Jean-
Marc Levy-Lebond deserves this.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
MIT: Living breathing machines, robotics, people page, Jessica, Martin, Rodney, Bryan, etc...
Why The Universe Has Feedback 2: Tasker and Bryan 1 Dec 2005
(WWW.CNCIRCLE.COM) cheap wholesale nike jordan, adidas,puma,lacoste,gucci,parada,lv,bape,tupac.outlet shoe, and hoodies,jean, jacket,sunglass,handbags, watch, mp4.iphone
Jean-Piere Messager's Slander/
SIR JEAN-PAUL TURCAUD MIGHT RETURN TO AUSTRALIA IN THE FALL FOR A VIST TO TELFER MINE
Independent/Dependent Phases 13.2: Levy Concentration Function
Independent/Dependent Phases 13: Levy Concentration Measure
Independent/Dependent Phases 13.1 References on Levy Concentration Measure
| Probabilistic-Statistical Physics 1.1: Levy Process Physics Applications
MIT Study Sees Nuclear Power as Green Weapon Against Global Warming
Efficiency against frictional resistance
US lifts sanctions against Bharatiya space, nuclear entities
The case for and against genius
Re: The Crusade Against Evolution
Re: A solution to the war against drugs
|
|
|
