CARLO ROVELLI ET LE FAUX POSTULAT DE LA RELATIVITE

[Pentcho Valev]

On Mar 16, 9:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9403/9403015v1.pdf
> Carlo Rovelli: "However, the formal content of special relativity is
> entirely coded in the Lorentz transformations, which were written by
> Lorentz, not by Einstein, and several years before 1905. What was
> Einstein's contribution? It was to understand the physical meaning of
> the Lorentz transformations. We could say, in a provocative manner,
> that Einstein's contribution to special relativity was the
> interpretation of the theory, not its formalism : the formalism
> already existed. Einstein was so persuasive with his interpretation of
> the Lorentz equations because he did not append an interpretation to
> them: rather, he re-derivedּthem, starting from two "postulates" with
> clear physical meaning (equivalence of inertial observers -
> universality of the speed of light) taken as facts of experience."
>
> That the "universality of the speed of light" did not belong to the
> "facts of experience" in 1905 is more than obvious - Carlo Rovelli is
> simply lying. Or perhaps Carlo Rovelli is just confused - he says
> "facts of experience" but in fact sees some theoretical reason behind
> Einstein's 1905 light postulate? Jean Eisenstaedt would disagree:
>
> 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."

La vitesse de la lumiere est independente des vitesses de la source
lumineuse et de l'observateur: c'etait un fait de l'experience en 1905
ou bien il y avait une raison theorique derriere ce postulat faux
d'Einstein? Carlo Rovelli expliquera peut-etre cela cet ete a Paris:

http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/conferences/paris.htm

Si personne ne s'y interesse, Carlo Rovelli expliquera une autre
chose, beaucoup plus interessante: pourquoi le temps n'existe plus
dans le monde des zombies d'Einstein.

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com