Science > Physics > WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2007 01:49:43 AM |
| Object: |
WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult: The theory of relativity is an
excellent money-spinner but one based on Einstein's false second
postulate - the principle of constancy of the speed of light. So
Einsteinians have never stopped trying to get rid of this postulate:
http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html :"They lead to an
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://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf : Jean-Marc Levy-
Leblond "De la relativite a la chronogeometrie ou: Pour en finir avec
le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons
aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une
consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement,
cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne superieure
experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree avec
certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de
futures mesures mettent enevidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait plus a la "vitesse de la
lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse limite invariante."
The problem is that even the most convoluted attempt to build a
relativity without Einstein's false second postulate unavoidably leads
to reestablishing the old Newtonian-Galilean mechanics:
http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/NEUF/product/eisenstaedt-jean/avant-ein=
stein-relativite-lumiere-gravitation,9782020672924.aspx?donnee_appel=3DCHAP=
ITRE
: Jean Eisenstaedt, "AVANT EINSTEIN: RELATIVITE, LUMIERE,
GRAVITATION": A l'universite, on anonne sans trop comprendre : =AB la
vitesse de la lumiere est independante de celle de sa source =BB. Le
principe de relativite jete aux orties, l'ether entre en scene, un mot
savant dont on n'a jamais vraiment su ce qu'il recouvre : un
desastre !.... Newtoniens impenitents, ces =AB philosophes de la nature
=BB ont tout simplement traite la lumiere comme faite de vulgaires
particules materielles : des =AB corpuscules lumineux =BB. Mais ce sont
gens serieux et ils se sont bases sur leurs Classiques, Galilee,
Newton et ses Principia ou deja l'on trouve des idees interessantes. A
la fin du XVIIIe siecle, au siecle des Lumieres (si bien nomme en
l'occurrence !), en Angleterre, en Ecosse, en Prusse et meme a Paris,
une veritable balistique de la lumiere sous-tend silencieusement la
theorie de l'emission, avatar de la theorie corpusculaire de la
lumiere de Newton. Lus a la lumiere ( !) des theories aujourd'hui
acceptees, les resultats ne sont pas minces : toute une prehistoire
emerge ainsi ! Une physique des rapports entre la lumiere, la
relativite, la gravitation... De tres nombreux tests, experiences et
effets aujourd'hui bien connus, peuvent s'y lire. Il s'agit de rien
moins que d'une cinematique classique (galileo-newtonienne) de la
lumiere, coherente avec le principe de relativite et donc comparable
par anticipation avec la cinematique einsteinienne. Il y manque bien
sur - et ce n'est pas rien ! - l'etrange loi de composition des
vitesses (qui ne s'ajoutent plus si simplement) de Lorentz et
l'interpretation plus tardive de Minkowski, qu'Einstein lui-meme eut
bien du mal a accepter...... Les =AB relativites =BB d'Einstein,
cinematique einsteinienne et theorie de la gravitation, ont la triste
reputation d'etre difficiles... Ne remettent-elles pas en cause des
notions familieres ? Leur =AB refonte =BB est d'autant plus necessaire."
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf : p.
35:"Relativity without c....it is easy to imagine a universe where the
speed of light depends on the frame of reference. Light could behave
like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed of light
postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations
between frames, using only the relativity postulate." p.38:"There is
only one decision to be made when constructing the spacetime structure
of an (empty) universe. You just have to say whether V is finite or
infinite, that is, whether the universe is Lorentzian or Galilean."
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Seven Seas Oscirius" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 06:32:32 AM |
|
|
WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE?
NO, NOW KNICKERS TO YOU MATE
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 03:22:41 AM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult:
You don't know what cult is.
The theory of relativity is an
excellent money-spinner
I think you meant the theory of spinors then.
but one based on Einstein's false second
postulate
It's just a postulate of a theory which happens to work well. Why all
this hand-wringing drama?
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 05:18:32 AM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1173946961.292970.36720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult:
=20
You don't know what cult is.
=20
The theory of relativity is an
excellent money-spinner
=20
I think you meant the theory of spinors then.
=20
but one based on Einstein's false second
postulate
=20
It's just a postulate of a theory which happens to work well.=20
No engineer has ever put it to use, ergo it doesn't happen to work at =
all.
Mommy and Daddy put you through college, did they?=20
Obviously you've never done a day's work in you life, you
don't know what the word "work" means.
Heck, you don't know how far it is from A to A.=20
You are so incredibly stupid I used you on my web page
as the example of really stupid stoopidity.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Analemmae/Analemmae.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 05:14:24 AM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1173946961.292970.36720@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult:
=20
You don't know what cult is.
=20
The theory of relativity is an
excellent money-spinner
=20
I think you meant the theory of spinors then.
=20
but one based on Einstein's false second
postulate
=20
It's just a postulate of a theory which happens to work well.=20
No engineer has ever put it to use, ergo it doesn't work at all.
Mommy and Daddy put you through college, did they?=20
Obviously you've never done a day's work in you life, you
don't know what the word "work" means.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 03:01:22 AM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 10:49 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
What's the matter? All the chemistry mailing lists finally ban you so
you flood USENET with stupidity instead?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE? |
15 Mar 2007 02:11:45 AM |
|
|
On Mar 14, 11:49 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult: The theory of relativity is an
excellent money-spinner but one based on Einstein's false second
postulate - the principle of constancy of the speed of light.
And every "discovery" you've trumpeted to celebrate killing it has
proved to be nothing of the kind; you simply cannot read for
comprehension.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
