EINSTEIN OU RITZ ?March 14 2013 at 6:12 PM
|Pentcho Valev |
"Madame, Monsieur, Les Archives de l'Etat du Valais (Cahiers de Vallesia) et la Société valaisanne de Physique ont le plaisir de vous annoncer la parution de l'ouvrage "Le destin douloureux de Walther Ritz (1878-1909), physicien théoricien de génie", sous la direction de Jean-Claude Pont. (...) Un seul fait donnera une idée de la grandeur de Walther Ritz. Lorsque, en 1909, l'Université de Zurich met au concours le poste de professeur de physique théorique, il y a douze candidats. Parmi eux Einstein et Ritz. C'est Ritz qui est choisi sur la base du rapport du professeur Kleiner, qui a été le directeur de thèse ... d'Einstein (voir les documents p. 60-70 de l'ouvrage) et qui écrit de Ritz qu'il possède « un don extraordinaire, se manifestant aux limites de la génialité. » Hélas, Ritz devait décéder quelques mois plus tard des suites de sa tuberculose."
Votre article dans cet ouvrage est intitulé "Electrodynamics in the physics of Walther Ritz", et vous y parlez de la théorie de l'émission de Ritz qui "FAIT DEPENDRE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE". Je n'ai pas lu l'article encore mais: Quelle est votre conclusion finale? Ritz ou Einstein? La vitesse de la lumière dépend ou ne dépend pas de la vitesse de la source lumineuse?
Olivier Darrigol, directeur de recherche au CNRS: "Ritz est l'auteur d'une tentative célèbre de concilier l'électrodynamique et le principe de relativité dans une théorie qui FAIT DEPENDRE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE."
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..."
Herbert Dingle: "Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell, or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION, INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ."
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."
Alberto Martinez: "Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."
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."
Re: EINSTEIN OU RITZ ?
|March 15 2013, 4:54 AM |
"Dans le premier de ces articles, il montre l'impossibilité de conserver le concept éther malgré les services qu'il a rendus. Mais la voie dans laquelle il s'est engagé est toute différente de celle qu'ont suivie Lorentz et Einstein. Il remarque que la Mécanique classique satisfait au principe de relativité et que la théorie de l'émission fondée sur elle est, en conséquence, conforme à ce principe. Attribuant les phénomènes électriques et lumineux à une énergie projetée par l'électron avec la vitesse de la lumière il peut conserver l'universalité du temps, le parallélogramme des vitesses, le solide invariable auxquels ont renoncé les électrodynamiques rivales. (...) Son électrodynamique est restée inachevée. Au cours de sa dernière maladie, l'idée de la tâche à accomplir subsiste et le soutient jusqu'à la fin. Le jour même de sa mort, le 7 juillet 1909, il dit à la soeur qui le veille: « Soignez-moi bien, ma soeur, il est si nécessaire que je vive encore quelques années pour la Science ! »
Où est allée la Science après la mort de Walther Ritz? Vers le trou noir de l'oubli:
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."
Ideology of/in Contemporary Physics, Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "In this way, major advances in modern physics, especially in relativity and quantum mechanics, have paradoxically fed an intensely irrational current. (...) Modern physics appears as a collection of mathematical formulae, whose only justification is that 'they work'. Moreover, the 'examples' used to 'concretise' the knowledge are often totally unreal, and actually have the effect of making it even more abstract. Such is the case when the explanation of special relativity is based on the consideration of the entirely fictitious spatial and temporal behaviour of clocks and trains (today sometimes one speaks of rockets... it sounds better... but it is as stupid!)."
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave."
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux »."
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."
Re: EINSTEIN OU RITZ ?
|March 15 2013, 12:44 PM |
"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."
"The last successful Newtonian scientist"?!? If Ritz is successful, why on earth should he be "the last"? The answer is simple: those after him who claimed that the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) did not exist and have never existed:
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."
Bryan Wallace is a typical unperson in Divine Albert's world:
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pages 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..."
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." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]
Re: EINSTEIN OU RITZ ?
|March 15 2013, 2:45 PM |
Walther Ritz against the field concept:
Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, 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; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."
In 1952 Einstein still believed that modelling light as a continuous field was advantageous but in 1954 he considered it "entirely possible" that the field concept had in fact killed physics:
Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence. (...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description..."
Albert Einstein (1954): "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."
Clues showing that the mortal sting of the field concept was Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
Re: EINSTEIN OU RITZ ?
|March 16 2013, 3:24 AM |
The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Ritz and refutes Divine Albert unless lengths gloriously contract so that the Michelson-Morley experiment can confirm Divine Albert and refute Ritz, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
That is, in order for the Michelson-Morley experiment experiment to confirm Divine Albert and refute Ritz, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, arbitrarily long objects are gloriously trapped inside arbitrarily short containers, with or without compression:
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."