Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD
Replies: 2   Last Post: Oct 21, 2013 1:04 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Pentcho Valev Posts: 6,212 Registered: 12/13/04
UNPERSONS IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD
Posted: Oct 18, 2013 11:29 AM

1. Walther Ritz:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
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..."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/RitzEinstein.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."

2. Bryan Wallace:

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/
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."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00387016908050941#.UlWfDC1OJjo
Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 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..."

3. Herbert Dingle:

Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS, p.27: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

4. Halton Arp:

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

5. Jean-Claude Pecker:

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

George Orwell's definition of "unperson":