Accélération, les Jumeaux et les ânes
Yanick Toutain
rectiligne uniforme
Special relativity is limited to the uniform motion rectilinear
motions
Accélération, les Jumeaux et les ânes
Lisons les sources de l'escroquerie relativiste pour l'instruction des
ânes qui ne savent même pas répéter les idioties de leurs gourous
Acceleration, Twins and asses Let us read the sources of the
relativistic swindle for the instruction of the asses which cannot
even repeat idiocies of their gurus
(babelfish translation)
Yanick Toutain
vendredi 13 avril 2007
liens et sources à
http://site.voila.fr/monsyte/de/SCIENCES/scphys/L_imposture_relativiste/Acceleration_Jumeaux_et_les_anes.htm
Ce texte vient compléter plusieurs textes polémiques contre Didier
Lauwaert qui m'accusa de mensonge. Il complète aussi le texte sur
Langeviin.
Pour le malheureux relativiste qui me traite de menteur pour n'avoir
pas réussi à atteindre les renseignements nécessaires à la formation
de base du catéchisme relativiste, il faut indiquer les ouvrages de
référence ;
Commençons par prendre le Quid 91. Cet ouvrage doit être accessible à
n'importe quel petit curé relativiste débutant.
Lisons le "Quid 91" p. 237
"La relativité
Elle permis de répondre au problème soulevé par l'expérience de
l'Américain Albert Michelson (1852-1931) en 1887 : la vitesse de la
lumière reste la même pour tous les référentiels galiléens (animé d'un
mouvement rectiligne et uniforme les uns par rapport aux autres), que
la source lumineuse soit fixe ou mobile par rapport à l'observateur.
(..)"
Le matérialiste constate que si ce texte contient des idioties, la
responsabilité n'en incombe pas au Quid, mais au "prétendu"
scientifique qui les a conseillé.
Mais j'entends la voix de l'âne relativiste : Cela ne prouve rien !
C'est le Quid !"
Il est vrai que l'âne relativiste aime les sources prestigieuses : "le
Quid c'est bon pour les lycéens !" (c'est l'insulte suprême de l'âne
relativiste.)
Précisions à nouveau la différence entre l'âne relativiste et l'escroc
relativiste. L'escroc relativiste est celui qui, à l'initiative de
Einstein persiste à répéter les mêmes idioties égocentristes.
L'âne relativiste, lui, n'a même pas compris ce que l'escroc a
construit, et il va répétant des âneries qui ne se trouvent même pas
dans le bréviaire de l'escroc relativiste. L'âne Lauwaert, dans 4
textes successifs, persiste à revendiquer son appartenance à ce
groupe !
En traitant l'auteur (moi!) de menteur, l'âne Lauwaert a revendiqué 4
fois le qualificatif d'âne relativiste!
Poursuivons.
Puisque le Quid n'est pas une source assez noble pour ces gens-là,
tournons-nous vers un ouvrage plus noble :
L'"Histoire mondiale des sciences" de Colin Ronan. Point sciences
Seuil 1983-1988 trad. Claude Bonnafont p. 658
"(...) Désignée plus tard par l'expression "relativité restreinte",
cette théorie se limitait aux mouvements de corps dans des cadres de
référence se déplaçant à des vitesses uniformes (c'est à dire sans
accélération) les uns par rapport aux autres."
Gasp ! Le complot anti-Lauwaert continue : Colin Ronan vient
cautionner les propos de l'auteur. "sans accélération" écrit-il !
Il est vrai que Colin Ronan pourrait avoir bâclé les 710 pages de son
ouvrage. De plus, la liste des conseillers de Colin Ronan ne comporte
pas le nom de Mr Lauwaert - ce qui est une faute impardonnable !
Allons faire un tour vers un ouvrage ancien écrit par un
polytechnicien : G. Cahen "Les conquêtes de la pensée scientifique"
Dunod 1953
A la page 42 il écrit : "D'une manière générale, à bord d'un véhicule
quelconque en mouvement rectiligne et uniforme, l'observation des
phénomènes ne peut permettre de déceler ni le sens ni la grandeur du
mouvement. Si vous laissez tomber un objet, sa chute vous paraîtra
verticale. S'il pleut, lorsque vous voyez par le hublot les gouttes
tomber obliquement, vous ne pouvez savoir si cette obliquité provient
de votre mouvement propre ou du vent.(..)
Il poursuit plus loin :
(...) L'échec de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley se traduit donc, en
définitive, par la constatation suivante : quelle que soit la vitesse
propre d'un référentiel, la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide,
mesurée par rapport à ce référentiel, a toujours la même valeur, à
savoir 299 774 kilomètres par seconde.
Seule la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide jouit de cette paradoxale
propriété, qui lui assigne, dans la nature, un rôle tout à fait
particulier.
C'est l'ensemble des conséquences de ce fait que l'on a coutume
d'appeler la théorie de la relativité restreinte (les Anglais disant :
special), par opposition à la théorie de la relativité généralisée,
dont nous aurons à reparler."
Un matérialiste voit dans cet énoncé un certain nombre d'absurdités
antiscientifiques. A commencer par la prétention de Michelson à
prouver quoi que ce soit.
Mais, ce n'est pas l'objet de ce texte : contentons-nous de vérifier
la conformité ou pas au bréviaire de l'église relativiste.
Le charlatan Cahen, comme ses camarades, nous décrit l'objet de la
relativité restreinte : il se limite aux objets "en mouvement
rectiligne et uniforme"
Une nouvelle fois, l'âne Lauwaert est contredit !
Peut-être aura-t-il plus de succès avec un professeur émérite
d'épistémologie de l'université de Paris-Nanterre, Jacques Merleau-
Ponty, auteur d'une immortelle biographie de son héros Einstein
(champs Flammarion 1993) (concédons-lui le mérite de la présence de
nombreuses équations qui aident à démasquer l'imposture : en
particulier cf. le mur de Merleau)
Lisons monsieur le professeur émérite : (attention amis matérialistes
c'est truffé d'idioties et de mensonges)
"La mécanique admettait, depuis Newton, l'idée de l'espace et du temps
absolu, et donc du mouvement absolu; mais la mise en évidence
expérimentale d'un tel mouvement n'était possible, selon ses
principes, que s'il s'agissait d'un mouvement accéléré; le mouvement
rectiligne et uniforme d'un corps par rapport à l'espace absolu devait
être tout à fait indiscernable du repos et de tout autre mouvement
rectiligne et uniforme du même corps. En termes modernes, cela
s'exprime en disant que la mécanique admettait le principe de
relativité restreinte, corollaire du principe d'inertie; il était
licite de voir là, comme Mach, une inconséquence dans les bases
logiques de la théorie qui, tout en posant l'hypothèse de l'espace
absolu, rendait impossible la définition expérimentale d'un système de
corps occupant réellement et durablement une position définie dans cet
espace. En fait cette inconséquence n'avait aucun inconvénient pour
l'application des lois de la mécanique. Il lui suffisait pratiquement
d'admettre par convention, que le Soleil et trois étoiles fixes
convenablement choisies sont un repère adéquat de l'espace absolu et
que les mouvements des planètes définissent une horloge absolue."
Au delà de ce charabia qui cherche à dire du mal de Newton mais qui
aboutit "pratiquement" à se contredire à la fin, au-delà de
l'absurdité de ne pas comprendre que la découverte scientifique du
vide absolue a été faite au cinquième siècle BC, il apparaît une
définition de la relativité restreinte.
Comme le sieur Lauwaert est carrément bouché à l'émeri, et qu'il se
précipiterait sur l'absence de clarté totale des propos du professeur
"émerite" (il est bouché lui aussi), nous allons lui offrir -
gracieusement - une deuxième page de Mr Merleau !
page 171 "Pour poursuivre et appliquer les définitions précédentes au
cas du mouvement, Einstein introduit alors les deux principes
caractéristiques de la théorie.
Celui qu'il appellera plus tard "principe de relativité restreinte" et
qui est l'extension à tous les phénomènes physiques de celui qu'admet
la mécanique pour les mouvements des corps massifs : si deux systèmes
de coordonnées sont en mouvement relatif de translation uniforme,
l'expression des lois physiques est la même dans les deux systèmes.
Le principe, admis par l'électromagnétisme de la constance de la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide, cette constance s'exprimant
ainsi : mesurée par rapport au système en repos, la vitesse de la
lumière dans le vide ne dépend pas du mouvement de la source par
rapport à ce système."
Aïe ! aie ! aie ! crie le menteur ! Quelle honte est la sienne !
Comment va-t-il se défendre ? Comment va-t-il chercher une pirouette
rhétorique lui qui me traitait de menteur de façon réitérée, lui,
l'ingénieur ! lui, le polytechnicien !
Que tous les précédents nous décriraient un fausse relativité ?
Allons alors chercher un ouvrage préfacé par le maître lui-même,
préfacé le 10 septembre 1948 : "Le livre de Lincoln Barnett apporte
une contribution de grande valeur à la littérature scientifique
populaire"
Ces mots sont de la plume de Albert Einstein et ont été tracés à
Princeton-New Jersey
On devrait pouvoir faire confiance à Lincoln Barnett "Einstein et
l'univers" nrf Gallimard 1951 trad. Julien Nequaud.
Amusons nous, au passage, de la modestie de celui qui appelle
"littérature scientifique populaire" un ouvrage à sa propre gloire !
Lisons la page 62 :
"(...) Si la vitesse de la lumière est constante, indépendamment du
mouvement de la Terre, raisonnait-il, elle doit être considérée
également indépendamment du mouvement du soleil, de la lune, des
étoiles, des météores ou de tout autre système se déplaçant, où que ce
soit dans l'univers. Il dessina à partir de là une généralisation plus
vaste, affirmant que les lois de la nature sont les mêmes pour tous
les systèmes se mouvant uniformément. En ce simple énoncé réside
l'essence de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein. Cette théorie
incorpore en elle le principe de la relativité de Galilée, qui
énonçait que les lois mécaniques sont les mêmes pour tous les systèmes
se mouvant uniformément. (...) Ainsi enveloppait-il toutes ces lois dans
un postulat fondamental : tous les phénomènes de la nature, toutes les
lois de la nature sont identiques pour tous les systèmes qui se
meuvent uniformément l'un relativement à l'autre.(...)"
La suite du texte illustre l'aspect profondément réactionnaire de tous
ces gens-là, mais cela sera l'objet d'un autre texte : A quoi la
relativité a-t-elle servi aux réactionnaires et aux capitalistes.
Pour autant, la citation est parfaite : il répète tout ce que les
autres ont dit précédemment et qui ne parvient pas à entrer dans le
cerveau du polytechnicien Lauwaert : La relativité restreinte concerne
les mouvements à vitesse constante! Les mouvements uniformes !
Pour l'édification du lecteur et de la lectrice (on renonce à celle de
l'âne menteur Lauwaert qui va inventer un autre délire), on va faire
une longue citation du même Barnett. Elle va nous indiquer de quelle
façon le cerveau malade de Einstein - qui croyait s'être débarrasser
des mouvements absolus de Newton grâce à sa relativité restreinte - va
s'acharner sur une nouvelle piste, dans l'intention de se débarrasser
du caractère absolu de l'accélération. On remarque au passage que
cette description ôte à l'âne Lauwaert toute prétention à intégrer
dans la relativité restreinte de Einstein quelque accélération que ce
soit ! (Et conséquemment tout déplacement circulaire que ce soit !)
Lisons Barnett page 108 et suivantes
"Peu de temps après avoir publié la théorie de la relativité
restreinte, Einstein commença cependant à se demander s'il n'y avait
pas une forme de mouvement qu'on pourrait considérer comme absolu, et
qui pourrait être décelé par les effets physiques provoqués sur le
système en mouvement lui-même, sans référence à un autre système. Par
exemple, un observateur qui se trouve dans un train se déplaçant très
doucement est incapable de dire par une expérience accomplie à
l'intérieur du train s'il est en mouvement ou immobile. Mais si le
mécanicien du train serre brutalement les freins, ou ouvre brusquement
la soupape, il prendra conscience alors, par le choc qui en résultera,
d'un changement de vitesse. Si le train s'engage dans un virage il
saura alors, par la pression subie par son propre corps résistant à un
changement de direction, que le mouvement du train a été modifié d'une
certaine façon. Par conséquent, se dit Einstein, s'il existe dans
l'univers entier un seul objet, la terre par exemple, et que soudain
il se mette à tourner irrégulièrement, ses habitants prendront alors
brutalement conscience de son mouvement. Ce qui suggère qu'un
mouvement non uniforme comme celui produit par des forces et des
accélérations peut après tout être absolu. Ce qui suggère également
que l'espace vide peut servir comme système de référence à l'intérieur
duquel il est possible de distinguer un mouvement absolu.
Pour Einstein, qui tenait cet espace pour nul et le mouvement pour
relatif, le caractère en apparence unique du mouvement non uniforme
était profondément troublant. Dans la théorie de la relativité
restreinte, il avait accepté comme prémisse la simple affirmation que
les lois de la nature sont les mêmes pour tous les systèmes se mouvant
uniformément les uns par rapport aux autres. Cette foi solide dans
l'harmonie universelle de la nature l'amena à refuser de croire qu'un
système en état de mouvement non uniforme puisse être l'unique système
dans lequel les lois de la nature seraient différentes. Ainsi énonça-t-
il , comme prémisse fondamentale de sa théorie de la relativité
généralisée : les lois de la nature sont les mêmes pour tous les
systèmes indépendamment de leur mouvement. En développant cette thèse,
il trouva de nouvelles lois de la gravitation qui renversèrent toutes
les conceptions que l'homme s'étaient faites de l'univers depuis trois
cent ans."
C'est le moins qu'on puisse dire !
Dans sa folie furieuse de se mettre au service du camp égocentriste,
au service du camp anti-matérialiste, Einstein, s'étant aperçu que sa
pseudo théorie de 1905 ne fonctionnait que pour les mouvements en
ligne droite et à vitesse constante, en comprit rapidement
l'absurdité !
Il fallait persister dans son erreur pour justifier le statut social
(et médiatique) qui était devenu le sien ! (Au moins au sein de la
prétendue "communauté scientifique"
Il faudrait aller chercher si l'idiotie de Langevin n'a pas joué un
rôle dans ce délire ! En effet il est rapporté que lors d'un congrès
de philosophie se déroulant en 1911, en Italie, le crétin Langevin
inventa le fameux problème des jumeaux avec le jumeau voyageur qui
revient plus jeune que l'autre.
Cette idiotie que j'ai traité dans un autre texte a pu avoir comme
conséquence d'inciter, précipitamment, Einstein à aggraver ses
foutaises pour se couvrir : La relativité restreinte n'avait RIEN à
dire d'un personnage qui accélérerait - pour quitter la Terre -, puis
qui ferait au choix soit demi-tour (mouvement circulaire) soit qui
s'arrêterait puis repartirait dans la direction inverse (3 mouvements
accélérés) et qui reviendrait sur Terre en arrêtant sa fusée près de
son jumeau par une 2° décélération (4° accélération de signe +/-).
La relativité restreinte se cantonnant (contrairement aux racontars de
Didier Lauwaert et de son nouveau caniche aboyeur Richard Hachel qui
vient maintenant me traiter, lui aussi, de menteur) aux mouvements en
ligne droite (sans retour) et à vitesse constante (vitesse uniforme)
Il est, alors, cocasse de citer in extenso la source sur l'histoire de
Langevin. Dans un numéro spécial de "Science et avenir", le charlatan
relativiste Michel Paty dont le titre personnel précédant l'article
est d'une longueur à faire pâlir d'envie un comte espagnol du 15°
siècle. Je ne résiste pas au plaisir de recopier la totalité du
présomptueux titre - dont la fonction est de nous garantir le sérieux
de ce qui va suivre ! Lénine (dans Matérialisme et empiriocriticisme)
nous parlait de clowns titrés professeurs !
"directeur de recherche au CNRS équipe REHSEIS (UMR 7596), CNRS et
université Paris-VII (Denis-Diderot) PATYxxarrobasexxPARIS7 .
JUSSIEU . FR"
[j'ai camouflé l'e-mail vantard : je ne lui souhaite pas d'être spamé
pour autant !!!]
Et le titre de l'article est "L'intelligibilité scientifique".
Je rappelle à l'aimable lecteur - que la patience et la curiosité
auront amené jusque là - que dans l'ouvrage précédent - préfacé par
Einstein himself - il est clair que la relativité restreinte concerne
les mouvement uniformes et rectilignes.
Lisons le charlatan Paty - directeur de recherche au CNRS y Paris
VII !
"La réception de la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein, sous ses deux
formes, restreinte et générale, en constitue un excellent exemple. Les
opposants invoquaient le sens commun ou le bon sens, entendus comme la
simple raison naturelle, pour s'élever contre des notions abstraites,
théorique, purement mathématiques, tels l'espace-temps relatif de la
relativité restreinte ou la courbure de l'espace de la relativité
générale. Les partisans de la théorie d'Einstein répliquaient en
invoquant un autre sens commun, qui s'appuie sur une analyse plus
critique pour justifier les nouvelles conceptions, et surtout pour les
faire comprendre."
Les opposants - nous les matérialistes - sommes disqualifiés
d'entrée !
Le charlatan Paty n'a pas lu les centaines de pages du livre
"prémonitoire" de Lénine contre les Mach, les Poincaré, les Bogdanov-
Malinovski ! Il n'a pas lu la façon dont il les accusait de nier
l'existence de la réalité en soi. Le charlatan Paty met dans la bouche
des matérialistes des arguments de crétins ! Il nous prend pour des
crétins : " Les opposants invoquaient le sens commun ou le bon sens,
entendus comme la simple raison naturelle,"
Paty est un misérable ignorant !
A cette époque, Ernest Esclangon cherchait à démontrer l'inégalité de
l'angle d'incidence et de l'angle de réflexion - inégalité causée par
le déplacement absolu de la Terre (depuis que j'ai découvert que
j'avais un prédécesseur, je n'ai pas eu le temps et/ou les moyens web
d'en retrouver la trace complète et de trouver ses données
numériques.) (Le raciste du site Allais est disqualifié ... ainsi
qu'Allais lui-même : tous deux misérables racistes !)
Les recherches d'Esclangon à elle seules suffisent à ranger les propos
de Paty au rang des fabulations de mauvaise foi !
Et Dayton Miller qui cherchait à contredire les fausses expériences de
Michelson et Morley ? Le charlatan pro-relativiste Paty n'en a pas
entendu parler ?
Quelle misère !
Les opposants à la relativité auraient invoqué le "sens commun" !
Devant un déluge de pareille mauvaise foi, on peut comprendre que
l'escroquerie relativiste ait pu durer un siècle entier !
On va lire, aux propos suivants que Paty est un escroc relativiste ...
doublé d'un âne du style Lauwaert ! Il n'a pas remarqué que la
relativité restreinte se limite aux mouvements uniformes!
Rappelons, pour le lecteur, que la relativité générale date de ...
1915 !
" Les partisans de la théorie d'Einstein répliquaient en invoquant un
autre sens commun, qui s'appuie sur une analyse plus critique pour
justifier les nouvelles conceptions, et surtout pour les faire
comprendre.
Un exemple remarquable de la présentation des idées relativistes selon
un sens commun renouvelé se trouve dans l'exposé que le physicien Paul
Langevin prononça, en 1911, face à des philosophes réunis en congrès à
Bologne, en Italie. Après avoir présenté les raisons de la conception
relativiste de la physique, qui renouvelait le cadre conceptuel de la
mécanique classique, Langevin proposa une "expérience de pensée"
portant sur un phénomène physique caractéristique de la nouvelle
théorie. Devenue célèbre à juste titre, l'expérience dite "des jumeaux
de Langevin" permet de comprendre dans tous ses détails le sens
physique des concepts d'espace et de temps. Il ressort que les
concepts d'espace et de temps de la relativité restreinte ne sont pas
seulement des abstractions mathématiques et possèdent un contenu
précis du point de vue des phénomènes physiques : ce contenu peut être
rendu très concret en rapportant le temps à des horloges et les
vitesses à des variations de longueur d'onde lumineuse.(..)"
C'est à se demander si le charlatan Paty a seulement ouvert un seul
livre de Einstein !
L'expérience de pensée de Langevin est une profonde idiotie : Je
cherche encore une seule phrase que Einstein aurait prononcé quant à
cette idiotie profonde, je n'ai pas trouvé !
Il est évident que les changements de vitesse nécessaires au retour du
jumeau excluent ce cas de l'appartenance à la relativité restreinte !
Tout ce qu'écrit le charlatan Paty relève donc de l'idiotie la plus
profonde : "Devenue célèbre à juste titre, l'expérience dite "des
jumeaux de Langevin" permet de comprendre dans tous ses détails le
sens physique des concepts d'espace et de temps."
Il faut être sérieusement demeuré pour écrire une phrase pareille ! Il
faut être sérieusement demeuré près du radiateur ou du buffet pour
écrire une phrase pareille qui démontre la totale incompréhension de
Michel Paty de ce qu'est - de ce que revendique d'être - la relativité
restreinte !
Quand on pense que l'on confie des élèves ! à des ignorants pareils !
Michel Paty est un charlatan pro relativiste doublé d'un âne qui ne
comprend rien à rien !
A moins qu'il y ait un aspect méconnu de l'apport de Paul Langevin à
la science?
Retournons aux sources fiables ! Allons lire la biographie de Einstein
par Banesh Hoffmann (en collaboration avec Helen Dukas). Les deux
principaux collaborateurs de Einstein doivent connaître le rôle
fondamental que Langevin a joué dans l'histoire des sciences !
Chance ! Banesh Hoffmann appartient au groupe des auteurs d'index !
Langevin (Paul) 109-110, 152, 163, 181, 190, 196, 203.
Huit pages vont pouvoir nous décrire le rôle fondamental de Langevin
dans l'histoire de la relativité ! La "devenue célèbre à juste titre,
l'expérience dite "des jumeaux de Langevin" permet de comprendre dans
tous ses détails le sens physique des concepts d'espace et de temps."
... va certainement être décrite de long en large !
Commençons ! page 109 ! Une photo ! Le congrès Solvay de 1911 !
On a la liste des 23 "savants" de la photo réuni par l'industriel
Solvay . On voit complément à droite sur la photo Einstein et... juste à
sa gauche ... l'inénarrable âne Langevin !
Année 1911... Hoffmann va nous parler du "fameux" congrès de Bologne"
On va avoir le détail page 110 !
Zut ! Pas de chance ! la page 110 fait la liste des "savants"
présents... Langevin est encadré par [Marie] Curie, Perrin et Poincaré.
Quelle injustice ! Pourquoi Hoffmann ne nous parle-t-il pas de la
"devenue célèbre à juste titre, expérience dite "des jumeaux de
Langevin" ?
C'est étrange !
Sans doute le sujet est-il abordé plus loin !
Allons page 152 !
Une photo !
Une photo avec "Einstein, Ehrenfest, Langevin, Kamerlingh-Onnes et
Weiss à Leyde en 1920"
Pas un mot sur Langevin dans le texte !
Il nous reste la page 163 !
Hosanna ! On y parle de Langevin :" Grâce aux efforts de Paul Langevin
notamment, qui eut à combattre une forte opposition de "patriotes",
Einstein donna en mars 1922 une série de conférences au Collège de
France."
{J'avais dans mes archives un "point Flammarion" dont j'ai oublié le
titre qui contenait un article racontant cette visite... Ami(e) lecteur
qui l'aurait ... serait aimable de le scanner et de le mettre en
ligne..}
L'opposition patriotique est un mensonge de plus des relativistes !
Cela dit, on n'a toujours pas les jumeaux !
Il nous restent les pages 181, 190, 196, 203.
181 ! zut re zut Une photo ! (prise le 3 juillet 1932 par la reine
Elizabeth de Belgique (la femme du boucher du Congo !)
190 ! Congrès Solvay de 1913 ! en photo !
L'âne Langevin est (quasiment !) sur toutes les photos du bouquin !
Mais il fait trop honte à Hoffmann pour que celui-ci se risque à
évoquer ses idées de crétin !
196 Ah ! On parle de lui : "Il y eut un homme, Paul Langevin, pour
prendre les idées de de Broglie au sérieux - et il y fallait une rare
clairvoyance. Il en parla à Einstein"
Ca tourne au sketch ! Le minable Langevin est tellement méprisé par
Banesh Hoffmann qu'il n'évoque pas une seule fois une quelconque idée
du grand philosophe - ni a fortiori ses "jumeaux de Langevin" que
vénère l'âne charlatan relativiste Paty !
Il reste un joker ! La page 203 !
Gag ! Photo ! Le congrès Solvay de 1927 avec l'âne Langevin assis
juste à côté de ...Einstein
Debye, Dirac, Compton, de Broglie, Bohr sont relégués au deuxième rang
... mais... qui se pavanent au premier rang - assis côte à côte - les deux
inséparables Einstein et Langevin !
Ca n'a pas l'air d'intriguer plus que ca le thuriféraire de voir que
le crétin Langevin se retrouve au premier rang du congrès Solvay de
1927! Qu'a-t-il donc inventé pour mériter un pareil honneur ?
{Note aux nouvelles générations : c'est peut-être lui - Langevin - la
ficelle sur laquelle il faut tirer pour faire venir la pelote du
complot des anti-matérialistes en faveur de l'idiotie relativité !}
En tout cas, les trois ânes relativistes - Didier Lauwaert, Michel
Paty et Richard Hachel en sont pour leurs frais : Il n'y a strictement
aucune trace qui pourrait laisser supposer une quelconque
compatibilité de la relativité restreinte et du problème des jumeaux !
Il ne reste plus qu'à chercher les banderilles (conceptuelles et
factuelles) finales pour discréditer définitivement les deux ignares
des forums : Didier Lauwaert et Richard Hachel
Citons Einstein lui-même :
"Un système de coordonnées admissible en mécanique est appelé système
d'inertie. L'état de mouvement d'un système d'inertie, d'après la
mécanique, n'est pas déterminé de manière unique par la nature. Au
contraire, on a la proposition suivante : un système de coordonnées se
mouvant uniformément et en ligne droite par rapport à un système
d'inertie est lui-même un système d'inertie. Ce qu'on entend par
"principe de relativité restreinte" est alors la généralisation de
cette proposition à n'importe quel processus naturel : toute loi
générale de la nature qui est vraie relativement à un système de
coordonnées K doit être vraie pour n'importe quel système K', qui est
en mouvement de translation uniforme par rapport à K.
Le second principe sur lequel repose la théorie de la relativité
restreinte est le "principe de la constance de la vitesse de la
lumière dans le vide".(texte de 1919 dans Einstein "Conceptions
scientifiques" Champs Flammarion 1990 ; publication originale du texte
London Times 28 novembre 1919). Par ailleurs, page 231 du livre signé
par Infeld et Einstein, on retrouve quasiment mot pour mot cette
définition de 1919 ("L'évolution des idées en physique "Champs
Flammarion 1983[édition originale 1938])
Les 3 crétins susnommés ont de quoi comprendre que ces mots de
Einstein excluent toute tentative de faire revenir sur Terre un
quelconque jumeau !
Page 214 du dernier ouvrage cité on trouve même une "preuve par
l'absurde" de Einstein pour démontrer qu'un mouvement circulaire ne
PEUT PAS relever de la relativité restreinte. Cette démonstration est
la reprise plus étoffée du chapitre de la Relativité de Einstein. Dans
ce chapitre de la deuxième partie "relativité générale" Einstein
examinait déjà le cas d'un personnage sur un grand manège.
Lire ces textes laisse rêveur sur les ânes qui pullulent dans les
forums "scientifiques" et qui n'ont toujours pas compris que problème
des jumeaux et relativité restreinte étaient totalement antinomiques,
totalement incompatibles et que seule la lâcheté arriviste de Einstein
a pu être la cause de ce qu'il ne démente pas définitivement l'âne
Langevin.
En conclusion, les matérialistes qui savent que la Terre est devant,
puis derrière le Soleil, comprennent que tout est en accélération et
ralentissement perpétuel (à l'exception des photons isolés qui eux
vont tout droit !)
La révolution scientifique à venir nous indiquera notre vitesse
absolue (objective) et la direction absolue de la trajectoire du
Soleil, par rapport à l'espace vide de Democritos-Epicuros-Lucretius-
Newton.
Les ânes iront braire ! Nous les paieront 1000 euros par mois pour
qu'ils se taisent (ou qu'ils étudient - enfin - Newton !)
Yanick Toutain
13/04/07 07:37
Uncle Al
>
> abstract:La relativité restreinte se limite à l'étude des mouvements
> rectiligne uniforme
> Special relativity is limited to the uniform motion rectilinear
> motions
Special Relativity is appropriate to any situation in which G=0 is a
valid approximation. Uniformly accelerated reference frames are
handled by SR. Spacetime curvature is handled by GR. Spacetime
torsion is handled by Einstein-Cartan or Weitzenböck (e.g.,
relativistic spin-orit couping in binary pulsar PSR J0737-3039A,B).
SR fails when the effects of a massive body and an accelerating
geometry are indistinguishable.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Pentcho Valev
> Yanick Toutain wrote:
> >
> > abstract:La relativité restreinte se limite à l'étude des mouvements
> > rectiligne uniforme
> > Special relativity is limited to the uniform motion rectilinear
> > motions
> [snip frog croaks]
>
> Special Relativity is appropriate to any situation in which G=0 is a
> valid approximation. Uniformly accelerated reference frames are
> handled by SR.
Are they? And what is the speed of light for an accelerated observer?
Constant? Variable? Can be greater than c=300000km/s? Your masters say
VARIABLE and CAN be greater than c=300000km/s (but of course you may
disagree):
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of
reference].......Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen
der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can
find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of
Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's
derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational
potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
Pentcho Valev
Yanick Toutain
> Yanick Toutain wrote:
>
> > abstract:La relativité restreinte se limite à l'étude des mouvements
> > rectiligne uniforme
> > Special relativity is limited to the uniform motion rectilinear
> > motions
>
> [snip frog croaks]
>
> Special Relativity is appropriate to any situation in which G=0 is a
> valid approximation. Uniformly accelerated reference frames are
> handled by SR. Spacetime curvature is handled by GR. Spacetime
> torsion is handled by Einstein-Cartan or Weitzenböck (e.g.,
> relativistic spin-orit couping in binary pulsar PSR J0737-3039A,B).
>
> SR fails when the effects of a massive body and an accelerating
> geometry are indistinguishable.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
About Uncle Al's relativity : On english newsgroups and on french news
groups the problem is the same: Einstein's partisans CAN'T READ !
They have not learned !
They are not able to read their Bible !
Let's read Einstein's book !
(You can read an english Babelfish systran (from Altavista)
translation of my original text :
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsite.voila.fr%2fmonsyte%2fde%2fSCIENCES%2fscphys%2fL_imposture_relativiste%2fAcceleration_Jumeaux_et_les_anes.htm
A french partisan of Einstein wrote I have said lies :
I have wrote : "It's forbidden to accelerate in special relativity,
and circularmovements are forbidden in special relativity"
I have found several extracts of Einstein'partisans (Colin Ronan,
Banesh Hoffman, Michel Paty, Jacques Merleau-Ponty)
My aim was to prove that "Twin paradox" is fully stupid and can't be
analysed with special relativity
Einstein is a swindler AND he don't speak on Langevin's twins in his
main books (you can look for inside the others)
He don't speak about Langevin because HE KWOWS that Langevin is a
cretin !
Langevin is near Einstein on Solvay congress photographies because
they are allies !
BUT Hoffman (go to systrantranslation of my text) don't say ONE word
on Langevin's twins
Banesh Hoffman knows that Langevin is a cretin
(He don't understand that HE, himself, is a cretin, that Einstein is a
cretin, that relativity's partisans are cretins
I HAVE BEEN A CRETIN FROM 1967 UNTIL 1999 !
I HAVRE BEEN A CRETIN DURING 32 YEARS !
You can stop to be cretins !
It is easy !
You can READ the Einstein's Bible (You can stop to believe he is a
genious)
You can read on
http://site.voila.fr/monsyte
the new equations to analyse movements in objectiv (absolute) space
of Democritos-Epicuros-Lucretius-Newton vacuum (empty) space.
in french
http://site.voila.fr/monsyte/de\SCIENCES\scphys\COURS\objectif\Cours_de_science_objective_Les_equations.htm
in english
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsite.voila.fr%2fmonsyte%2fde%2fSCIENCES%2fscphys%2fCOURS%2fobjectif%2fCours_de_science_objective_Les_equations.htm
http://site.voila.fr/monsyte/of/the_new_sparkle.htm
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsite.voila.fr%2fmonsyte%2fde%2fla_nouvelle_etincelle.htm
========================
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/index.htm
The english version of Einstein'book is from
marxists.org web site
Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924)
Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920
Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd
First Published: December, 1916
Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen
Copyleft: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002.
Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My french version is PBP Payot
======================================
Albert Einstein: Relativity
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
==============================
choosen extracts : special relativity and uniform movements
(frommarxists.org)
=================================
chapter 5
Albert Einstein: Relativity
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Principle of Relativity
(in the restricted sense)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to attain the greatest possible clearness, let us return to
our example of the railway carriage supposed to be travelling
uniformly. We call its motion a uniform translation ("uniform" because
it is of constant velocity and direction, " translation " because
although the carriage changes its position relative to the embankment
yet it does not rotate in so doing). Let us imagine a raven flying
through the air in such a manner that its motion, as observed from the
embankment, is uniform and in a straight line. If we were to observe
the flying raven from the moving railway carriage. we should find that
the motion of the raven would be one of different velocity and
direction, but that it would still be uniform and in a straight line.
Expressed in an abstract manner we may say : If a mass m is moving
uniformly in a straight line with respect to a co-ordinate system K,
then it will also be moving uniformly and in a straight line relative
to a second co-ordinate system K1 provided that the latter is
executing a uniform translatory motion with respect to K. In
accordance with the discussion contained in the preceding section, it
follows that:
If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system. then every other co-ordinate
system K' is a Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a
condition of uniform motion of translation. Relative to K1 the
mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good exactly as they do with
respect to K.
We advance a step farther in our generalisation when we express the
tenet thus: If, relative to K, K1 is a uniformly moving co-ordinate
system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course
with respect to K1 according to exactly the same general laws as with
respect to K. This statement is called the principle of relativity (in
the restricted sense).
As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena were capable
of representation with the help of classical mechanics, there was no
need to doubt the validity of this principle of relativity. But in
view of the more recent development of electrodynamics and optics it
became more and more evident that classical mechanics affords an
insufficient foundation for the physical description of all natural
phenomena. At this juncture the question of the validity of the
principle of relativity became ripe for discussion, and it did not
appear impossible that the answer to this question might be in the
negative.
Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak
very much in favour of the validity of the principle of relativity.
Even though classical mechanics does not supply us with a sufficiently
broad basis for the theoretical presentation of all physical
phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of " truth,"
since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies
with a delicacy of detail little short of wonderful. The principle of
relativity must therefore apply with great accuracy in the domain of
mechanics. But that a principle of such broad generality should hold
with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet should be
invalid for another, is a priori not very probable.
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall
return later. If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense)
does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc.,
which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be
equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we
should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of
being formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only
on condition that, from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate
systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of
motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because
of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling
this system " absolutely at rest," and all other Galileian systems K "
in motion." If, for instance, our embankment were the system K0 then
our railway carriage would be a system K, relative to which less
simple laws would hold than with respect to K0. This diminished
simplicity would be due to the fact that the carriage K would be in
motion (i.e."really")with respect to K0. In the general laws of nature
which have been formulated with reference to K, the magnitude and
direction of the velocity of the carriage would necessarily play a
part. We should expect, for instance, that the note emitted by an
organpipe placed with its axis parallel to the direction of travel
would be different from that emitted if the axis of the pipe were
placed perpendicular to this direction.
Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round the sun, our earth is
comparable with a railway carriage travelling with a velocity of about
30 kilometres per second. If the principle of relativity were not
valid we should therefore expect that the direction of motion of the
earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature, and also that
physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the
orientation in space with respect to the earth. For owing to the
alteration in direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in
the course of a year, the earth cannot be at rest relative to the
hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole year. However, the most
careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic properties
in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of
different directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the
principle of relativity.
Next: The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities Employed in Classical
Mechanics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relativity: The Special and General Theory
======================================
===========================================================================
chapter 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
The General Theory of Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special and General Principle of Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basal principle, which was the pivot of all our previous
considerations, was the special principle of relativity, i.e. the
principle of the physical relativity of all uniform motion. Let as
once more analyse its meaning carefully.
(...)
=======================================================================
chapter 23
Albert Einstein: Relativity
Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of
Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitherto I have purposely refrained from speaking about the physical
interpretation of space- and time-data in the case of the general
theory of relativity. As a consequence, I am guilty of a certain
slovenliness of treatment, which, as we know from the special theory
of relativity, is far from being unimportant and pardonable. It is now
high time that we remedy this defect; but I would mention at the
outset, that this matter lays no small claims on the patience and on
the power of abstraction of the reader.
We start off again from quite special cases, which we have frequently
used before. Let us consider a space time domain in which no
gravitational field exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us supposse the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K1, which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K1 to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K1 is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K. But the observer on the
disc may regard his disc as a reference-body which is " at rest " ; on
the basis of the general principle of relativity he is justified in
doing this. The force acting on himself, and in fact on all other
bodies which are at rest relative to the disc, he regards as the
effect of a gravitational field. Nevertheless, the space-distribution
of this gravitational field is of a kind that would not be possible on
Newton's theory of gravitation.1) But since the observer believes in
the general theory of relativity, this does not disturb him; he is
quite in the right when he believes that a general law of gravitation
can be formulated- a law which not only explains the motion of the
stars correctly, but also the field of force experienced by himself.
The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and
measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact
definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with
reference to the circular disc K1, these definitions being based on
his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise ?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section 12, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K.
It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an observer whom
we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at the centre of the
circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or, to make the case more
general, in every gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or
less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is situated
(at rest). For this reason it is not possible to obtain a reasonable
definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at rest
with respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents
itself when we attempt to apply our earlier definition of simultaneity
in such a case, but I do not wish to go any farther into this
question.
Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space co-ordinates also
presents insurmountable difficulties. If the observer applies his
standard measuring-rod (a rod which is short as compared with the
radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as
judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will be less
than I, since, according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a
shortening in the direction of the motion. On the other hand, the
measaring-rod will not experience a shortening in length, as judged
from K, if it is applied to the disc in the direction of the radius.
If, then, the observer first measures the circumference of the disc
with his measuring-rod and then the diameter of the disc, on dividing
the one by the other, he will not obtain as quotient the familiar
number p = 3.14 . . ., but a larger number,2) whereas of course, for a
disc which is at rest with respect to K, this operation would yield p
exactly. This proves that the propositions of Euclidean geometry
cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a
gravitational field, at least if we attribute the length I to the rod
in all positions and in every orientation. Hence the idea of a
straight line also loses its meaning. We are therefore not in a
position to define exactly the co-ordinates x, y, z relative to the
disc by means of the method used in discussing the special theory, and
as long as the co- ordinates and times of events have not been
defined, we cannot assign an exact meaning to the natural laws in
which these occur.
Thus all our previous conclusions based on general relativity would
appear to be called in question. In reality we must make a subtle
detour in order to be able to apply the postulate of general
relativity exactly. I shall prepare the reader for this in the
following paragraphs.
Next: Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Continuum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1) The field disappears at the centre of the disc and increases
proportionally to the distance from the centre as we proceed
outwards.
2) Throughout this consideration we have to use the Galileian (non-
rotating) system K as reference-body, since we may only assume the
validity of the results of the special theory of relativity relative
to K (relative to K1 a gravitational field prevails).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relativity: The Special and General Theory
=================
from marxists.org
Albert Einstein Reference Archive
Relativity
The Special and General Theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924)
Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory © 1920
Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd
First Published: December, 1916
Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen
Copyleft: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002.
Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under
the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preface
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
01. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions
02. The System of Co-ordinates
03. Space and Time in Classical Mechanics
04. The Galileian System of Co-ordinates
05. The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense)
06. The Theorem of the Addition of Velocities employed in Classical
Mechanics
07. The Apparent Incompatability of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity
08. On the Idea of Time in Physics
09. The Relativity of Simultaneity
10. On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance
11. The Lorentz Transformation
12. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion
13. Theorem of the Addition of Velocities. The Experiment of Fizeau
14. The Hueristic Value of the Theory of Relativity
15. General Results of the Theory
16. Expereince and the Special Theory of Relativity
17. Minkowski's Four-dimensial Space
Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
18. Special and General Principle of Relativity
19. The Gravitational Field
20. The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for
the General Postulate of Relativity
21. In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical Mechanics and of
the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory?
22. A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity
23. Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of
Reference
24. Euclidean and non-Euclidean Continuum
25. Gaussian Co-ordinates
26. The Space-Time Continuum of the Speical Theory of Relativity
Considered as a Euclidean Continuum
27. The Space-Time Continuum of the General Theory of Realtiivty is
Not a Eculidean Continuum
28. Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity
29. The Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the Basis of the
General Principle of Relativity
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
30. Cosmological Difficulties of Netwon's Theory
31. The Possibility of a "Finite" and yet "Unbounded" Universe
32. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of
Relativity
Appendices:
01. Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation (sup. ch. 11)
02. Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space ("World") (sup. ch 17)
03. The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity
04. The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of
Relativity (sup. ch 32)
05. Relativity and the Problem of Space
Note: The fifth appendix was added by Einstein at the time of the
fifteenth re-printing of this book; and as a result is still under
copyright restrictions so cannot be added without the permission of
the publisher.
Yanick Toutain
instruction of the asses which cannot even repeat idiocies of their
gurus
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fsite.voila.fr%2fmonsyte%2fde%2fSCIENCES%2fscphys%2fL_imposture_relativiste%2fAcceleration_Jumeaux_et_les_anes.htm
=================
babelfish altavista systran translation
Mr Valev is able to ameliorate this translation !!! (or someone from
Quebec, New Orleans or my cousin Michelle !!!)
Acceleration, Twins and asses
Let us read the sources of the relativistic swindle for the
instruction of the asses which cannot even repeat idiocies of their
gurus
Yanick Toutain
Friday April 13, 2007
This text comes to supplement several texts polemical against Didier
Lauwaert who showed me lie. It supplements also the text on Langeviin.
For the unhappy relativist who treats me of liar not to have succeeded
in reaching the information necessary to the basic training of
relativistic catechism, it is necessary to indicate the reference
works;
Let us start by taking Quid 91. This work must be accessible to any
small relativistic priest beginning.
Let us read the "Quid 91" p. 237
"relativity
It allowed to answer the problem raised by the experiment of the
American Albert Michelson (1852-1931) in 1887: the speed of the light
remains the same one for all the reference frames galiléens (animated
of a rectilinear motion and uniform ones compared to the others),
whether the source of light is fixed or mobile compared to the
observateur.(..)"
The materialist notes that if this text contains idiocies, the
responsibility does not fall about it on Quid, but "alleged" to the
scientist who advised them.
But I hear the voice of the relativistic ass: That does not prove
anything! It is Quid!"
It is true that the relativistic ass likes the prestigious sources:
"Quid it is good for the high-school pupils!" (it is the supreme
insult of the relativistic ass.)
Again specified the difference between the relativistic ass and the
relativistic swindler. The relativistic swindler is that which, on the
initiative of Einstein persists in repeating same idiocies egocentric
persons.
The relativistic ass, it, did not even include/understand what the
swindler built, and it is repeating stupid things which are not even
in the breviary of the relativistic swindler. The Lauwaert ass, in 4
successive texts, persists in asserting its membership of this group!
By treating the author (me!) of liar, the Lauwaert ass asserted 4
times the relativistic qualifier of ass!
Let us continue.
Since Quid is not noble a enough source for these people-there, we
turn towards a nobler work:
The world "Histoire of sciences" Ronan Hake. Not sciences Threshold
1983-1988 trad. Claude Bonnafont p. 658
"(...) Indicated later by the expression" restricted relativity ",
this theory was limited to the movements of body in frames of
reference moving to uniform speeds (i.e. without acceleration) the
ones compared to the others."
Gasp! The anti-Lauwaert plot continuous: Colin Ronan comes to
guarantee the remarks of the author. "without acceleration" he writes!
It is true that Colin Ronan could have bâclé the 710 pages of its
work. Moreover, the list of advisers Ronan the Hake does not comprise
the name of Mr. Lauwaert - what is an unforgivable fault!
Let us make a turn towards an old work writes by a polytechnician: G
Cahen "conquests of the scientific thought" Dunod 1953
With page 42 he writes: "Generally, on board an unspecified vehicle in
rectilinear motion and uniform, the observation of the phenomena can
make it possible to detect neither the direction nor the size of the
movement. If you drop an object, its fall will appear vertical to you.
If it rains, when you see by the port-hole the drops falling
obliquely, you cannot know if this obliqueness comes from your own
movement or the vent.(..)
It continues further:
(...) The failure of the experiment of Michelson and Morley is thus
translated, ultimately, by the following observation: whatever the
clean speed of a reference frame, the speed of the light in the
vacuum, measured compared to this reference frame, always has the same
value, namely 299 774 kilometers a second.
Only the speed of the light in the vacuum enjoys this paradoxical
property, which assigns to him, in nature, a completely particular
role.
It is the whole of the consequences of this fact that one has habit to
call the restricted theory of relativity (the saying English:
special), in opposition to the generalized theory of relativity, of
which we will have to speak again."
A materialist sees in this statement a certain number of
antiscientific nonsenses. To start with the claim of Michelson to
prove anything.
But, it is not the object of this text: satisfy we to check conformity
or not with the breviary of the relativistic church.
The Cahen charlatan, like his comrades, describes us the object of
restricted relativity: he limits himself to the objects "in
rectilinear motion and uniform"
Once again, the Lauwaert ass is contradicted!
Perhaps it will have more successes with a highly skilled professor of
epistemology of the university of Paris-Nanterre, Jacques Merleau-
Ponty, author of an immortal biography of its hero Einstein (fields
Flammarion 1993) (let us concede to him the merit of the presence of
many equations which help to uncover imposture: in particular cf the
wall of Merleau)
Let us read Mister the highly skilled professor: (attention friends
materialists it is truffé idiocies and lies)
"mechanics admitted, since Newton, the idea of space and absolute
time, and thus of the absolute movement; but the experimental
description of such a movement was not possible, according to its
principles, that if it acted of an accelerated movement; the
rectilinear motion and uniform of a body compared to absolute space
was to be completely indistinguishable rest and of any other
rectilinear motion and uniform of the same body. In modern terms, that
is expressed by saying that mechanics admitted the principle of
restricted relativity, corollary of the principle of inertia; there it
was licit to see, like Mach, an inconsistency in the logical bases of
the theory which, while posing the assumption of absolute space, made
impossible the experimental definition of a system of occupying body
really and durably a position defined in this space. In fact this
inconsistency did not have any disadvantage for the application of the
laws of mechanics. It was enough for him practically to admit by
convention, that the Sun and three suitably selected fixed stars are
an adequate reference mark of absolute space and that the movements of
planets define an absolute clock."
Beyond this nonsense which seeks to say evil of Newton but which leads
"practically" to be contradicted at the end, beyond the nonsense not
to understand that the scientific discovery of the vacuum absolute was
made at fifth century BC, it appears a definition of restricted
relativity.
How the sior Lauwaert is straightforwardly stopped with emery, and
that it would precipitate on the absence of total clearness of the
remarks of the professor "émerite" (it is stopped him also), we will
offer - gracefully - a second page of Mr. Merleau to him!
page 171 "to continue and apply the preceding definitions to the case
of the movement, Einstein then introduces the two principles
characteristic of the theory.
That that it will call later "principle of restricted relativity" and
which is the extension to all the physical phenomena of that that
admits mechanics for the movements of the massive bodies: if two
frames of reference are moving relative of uniform translation, the
expression of the physical laws is the same one in the two systems.
The principle, admitted by the electromagnetism of the constancy the
speed of the light in the vacuum, this constancy expressing itself as
follows: measured compared to the system in rest, the speed of the
light in the vacuum does not depend on the movement on the source
compared to this system."
Aïe! have! have! shout the liar! What a shame is his!
How will it be defended? How it will seek a pirouette rhetoric him
which treated me of liar in a reiterated way, him, the engineer! he,
the polytechnician!
What would all the precedents describe us a false relativity?
Then let us seek a work prefaced by the Master himself, prefaced on
September 10, 1948: "the book of Lincoln Barnett contributes a share
of great value to the popular scientific literature"
These words are feather of Albert Einstein and were traced in
Princeton-New Jersey
One should be able to trust Lincoln Barnett "Einstein and the
universe" nrf Gallimard 1951 trad. Julien Nequaud.
Let us amuse, with the passage, modesty of that which calls "popular
scientific literature" a work with its own glory!
Let us read page 62:
"(...) If the speed of the light is constant, independently of the
earthmoving, reasoned it, it must be considered also independently of
the movement of the sun, the moon, stars, the meteors or any other
moving system, where that it is in the universe. It drew from there a
vaster generalization, affirming that the natural laws are the same
ones for all the systems being driven uniformly. In this simple
statement the gasoline of the theory of relativity of Einstein
resides. This theory incorporates in it the principle of the
relativity of Galileo, who stated that the mechanical laws for all the
systems being driven (...) Ainsi uniformly wrapped all are the same
ones these laws in a fundamental postulate: all the phenomena of
nature, all the natural laws are identical for all the systems which
are driven one relative with the autre.(uniformly...)"
The continuation of the text illustrates the aspect deeply reactionary
of all these people-there, but that will be the object of another
text: With what relativity it was used to the reactionaries and to the
capitalists.
For as much, the quotation is perfect: it repeats all that the others
said previously and which does not manage to enter the brain of the
polytechnician Lauwaert: Restricted relativity relates to the
movements at constant speed! Uniform movements!
For the construction of the reader and reader (one gives up that of
the lying ass Lauwaert which will invent another is delirious), one
will make a long quotation of same Barnett. It will indicate to us how
the sick brain of Einstein - which believed to be to disencumber of
the absolute movements of Newton thanks to its restricted relativity -
will be baited on a new track, in the intention to get rid of the
absolute character of acceleration. One notices in the passing which
this description removes with the Lauwaert ass any claim to integrate
in the restricted relativity of Einstein some acceleration that it is!
(And consequently any circular displacement that it is!)
Let us read Barnett page 108 and following
"Little time after having published the restricted theory of
relativity, Einstein however started to wonder whether there were not
a form of movement which one could regard as absolute, and who could
be detected by the physical effects caused on the system moving
itself, without reference to another system. For example, an observer
which is in a moving train very gently is unable to say by an
experiment achieved to the interior of the train if it is moving or
motionless. But if the mechanic of the train applies the brakes
brutally, or abruptly opens the valve, it will become aware then, by
the shock which will result from it, of a shifting of speed. If the
train engages in a turn it will then know, by the pressure undergone
by its own body resistant to a change of direction, that the movement
of the train was modified in a certain way. Consequently, says
Einstein, if there exists in the whole universe only one object, the
ground for example, and that suddenly it starts to turn irregularly,
its inhabitants will then take brutally conscience of its movement.
What suggests that a nonuniform movement like that produced by forces
and accelerations can after all be absolute. What also suggests that
empty space can be useful as frame of reference inside whose it is
possible to distinguish an absolute movement.
For Einstein, which held this space for no one and the movement for
relative, the seemingly single character of the nonuniform movement
was deeply disconcerting. In the restricted theory of relativity, it
had accepted as premise the simple assertion which the natural laws
are the same ones for all the systems being driven the ones compared
to the others uniformly. This solid faith in the universal harmony of
nature led it to refuse to believe that a system in a state of
nonuniform movement can be the single system in which the natural laws
would be different. Thus it stated, like fundamental premise of its
generalized theory of relativity: the natural laws are the same ones
for all the systems independently of their movement. By developing
this thesis, it found new laws of the gravitation which reversed all
the designs that the man had been made of the universe for three
hundred years."
It is the least which one can say!
In its furious madness to put itself at the service of the camp
egocentric person, with the service of the camp anti-materialist,
Einstein, being seen that its pseudo theory of 1905 functioned only
for the movements in straight line and at constant speed, the nonsense
included/understood some quickly!
It was necessary to persist in its error to justify the social status
(and media) which had become it his! (At least within alleged "the
scientific community"
It would be necessary to go to seek if the idiocy of Langevin did not
play a part in this is delirious! In effect it is reported that at the
time of a congress of philosophy being held in 1911, in Italy, the
cretin Langevin invented the famous problem of the twins with the twin
traveller who returns younger than the other.
This idiocy that I treated in another text could have like consequence
to encourage, precipitately, Einstein to worsen its rubbish to cover
itself: Restricted relativity did not have ANYTHING to say of a
character who would accelerate - to leave the Earth -, then which
would make with the choice either half-turn (circular motion) or which
would stop then would set out again in the direction reverses (3
accelerated movements) and which would return on Earth by stopping its
rocket close of its twin by a 2° deceleration (4° acceleration of sign
+-).
Restricted relativity confining itself (contrary to the lies of Didier
Lauwaert and its new poodle barker Richard Hachel which now comes to
treat me, him also, of liar) with the movements in straight line
(without return) and at constant speed (uniform speed)
It is, then, cocasse to quote in extenso the source on the history of
Langevin. In a special number of "Science and future", the
relativistic charlatan Michel Paty whose personal title preceding the
article is from a length to make fade of desire a Spanish count of the
15° century. I do not resist the pleasure of recopying the totality of
the presumptuous title - whose function is to guarantee the serious
one to us what will follow! Lénine (in Materialism and
empiriocriticism) spoke to titrated clowns professors to us!
"directing with research at CNRS equips REHSEIS (UMR 7596), CNRS and
university Paris-Vii (Denis-Diderot) PATYxxarrobasexxPARIS7. JUSSIEU.
FR "
[ I camouflaged boasting e-mail: I do not wish him to be spamé for as
much!!! ]
And article titrates it is "scientific intelligibility".
I recall to the pleasant reader - that patience and curiosity will
have brought until there - who in the preceding work - prefaced by
Einstein himself - it is clear that restricted relativity relates to
the movement uniforms and rectilinear.
Let us read the Paty charlatan - director of research at CNRS y Paris
VII!
"the reception of the theory of relativity of Einstein, in its two
forms, restricted and general, constitutes an excellent example of it.
The opponents called upon the common direction or the good direction,
heard like the simple natural reason, to protest against abstract
concepts, theoretical, purely mathematics, the such relative space
times of restricted relativity or the curve of the space of general
relativity. Especially the partisans of the theory of Einstein
retorted by calling upon another common direction, which is based on a
more critical analysis to justify the new designs, and to render
comprehensible them."
The opponents - us them materialists - let us be disqualified of
entry!
The Paty charlatan did not read the hundreds of pages of the
"premonitory" book of Lénine against the Mach, Poincaré, Bogdanov-
Malinovski! He did not read the way in which he showed them to deny
the existence of reality in oneself. The Paty charlatan puts in the
mouth of the materialists of the arguments of cretins! He takes to us
for cretins: " the opponents called upon the common direction or the
good direction, heard like the simple natural reason,"
Paty is an ignorant poor wretch!
At that time, Ernest Esclangon sought to show inequality of angle of
incidence and of angle of reflection - inequality caused by
displacement absolute of Ground (since I discovered that I had a
predecessor, I did not have average time and/or the Web to find the
complete trace and to find of it his data numerical.) (the racist of
the Allais site is disqualified... as Allais itself: both racist poor
wretches!)
Research of Esclangon to it only is enough to insincerely arrange the
remarks of Paty to the row of fabulations!
And Dayton Miller which sought to contradict distort them experiments
of Michelson and Morley? Didn't the charlatan Paty pro-relativist
intend any to speak?
What a misery!
The opponents with relativity would have called upon the "common
direction"! In front of a flood of similar bad faith, one can
understand that the relativistic swindle could last one century whole!
One will read, with the following remarks that Paty is a doubled
relativistic swindler... of an ass of the Lauwaert style! It noticed
only restricted relativity is limited to the uniform movements!
Let us recall, for the reader, that general relativity goes back to...
1915!
" the partisans of the theory of Einstein retorted by calling upon
another common direction, which is based on a more critical analysis
to justify the new designs, and especially to render comprehensible
them.
A remarkable example of the presentation of the relativistic ideas
according to a renewed common direction is in the talk that the
physicist Paul Langevin pronounced, in 1911, vis-a-vis with
philosophers assembled in congress in Bologna, in Italy. After having
presented the reasons of the relativistic design of the physics, which
renewed the conceptual framework of traditional mechanics, Langevin
proposed a "experiment of thought" relating to a physical phenomenon
characteristic of the new theory. Become famous rightly, the
experiment known as "of the twins of Langevin" makes it possible to
include/understand in all its details the physical direction of the
concepts of space and time. It arises that the concepts of space and
time of restricted relativity are not only mathematical abstractions
and have precise contents from the point of view of the physical
phenomena: these contents can be made very concrete while bringing
back time to clocks and speeds with variations wavelength lumineuse.
(..)"
It is to be wondered whether the Paty charlatan opened only only one
book of Einstein!
The experiment of thought of Langevin is a deep idiocy: I seek only
one more sentence that Einstein would have pronounced as for this
major idiocy, I did not find!
It is obvious that the shiftings of speed necessary to the return of
the twin exclude this case from the membership of restricted
relativity!
All that writes the Paty charlatan thus concerns the major idiocy:
"Become famous rightly, the experiment known as" of the twins of
Langevin "makes it possible to include/understand in all its details
the physical direction of the concepts of space and time."
It is seriously necessary to be remained to write a similar sentence!
It is seriously necessary to be remained close to the radiator or the
dresser to write a similar sentence which shows the total
incomprehension of Michel Paty of what is - of what asserts to be -
restricted relativity!
When it is thought that one entrusts pupils! with similar ignoramuses!
Michel Paty is a relativistic charlatan pro doubled of an ass which
does not include/understand anything with nothing!
With less than there is an ignored aspect of the contribution of Paul
Langevin to science?
Let us turn over to the reliable sources! Let us read the biography of
Einstein by Banesh Hoffmann (in collaboration with Helen Dukas). The
two principal collaborators of Einstein must know the fundamental role
that Langevin played in the history of sciences!
Chance! Banesh Hoffmann belongs to the group of the authors of index!
Langevin (Paul) 109-110, 152, 163, 181, 190, 196, 203.
Eight pages will be able to describe us the fundamental role of
Langevin in the history of relativity! "become famous rightly, the
experiment known as" of the twins of Langevin "makes it possible to
include/understand in all its details the physical direction of the
concepts of space and time." ... certainly will be described length
into broad!
Let us start! page 109! A photograph! The Solvay congress of 1911!
There is the list of the 23 "scientists" of the photograph joined
together by the Solvay industrialist. One sees complement on the right
on the Einstein photograph and... just on his left... the inénarrable
Langevin ass!
Year 1911... Hoffmann will speak to us about "famous" the congress of
Bologna "
One will have the detail page 110!
Zut! No the chance! the page 110 fact the list of the "scientists"
present... Langevin is framed by [ Marie ] Curie, Perrin and Poincaré.
What a injustice! Why Hoffmann doesn't it speak to us about "not
become famous rightly, experiment known as" of the twins of Langevin
"?
It is strange!
Undoubtedly the subject it is tackled further!
Let us go page 152!
A photograph!
A photograph with "Einstein, Ehrenfest, Langevin, Kamerlingh-Onnes and
Weiss with Leyde in 1920"
Not a word on Langevin in the text!
There remains to us page 163!
Hosanna! One speaks there about Langevin: " Thanks to the efforts of
Paul Langevin in particular, who had to fight a strong opposition of
"patriots", Einstein gave in March 1922 a series of conferences to the
College of France."
{I had in my files a "Flammarion point" of which I forgot the title
which contained an article telling this visit... Ami(e) reader which
would have it... would be pleasant of the scanner and to put it on
line.}
The patriotic opposition is a lie moreover of the relativists!
However, there are not still the twins!
There remain to us pages 181, 190, 196, 203.
181! zut Re zut a photograph! (catch on July 3, 1932 by the Elizabeth
queen of Belgium (the woman of the butcher of Congo!)
190! Solvay congress of 1913! in photograph!
The Langevin ass is (almost!) on all the photographs of the book! But
it makes too shame with Hoffmann so that this one goes so far as to
evoke its ideas of cretin!
196 Ah! One speaks about him: "There were a man, Paul Langevin, to
take the ideas of Broglie to the serious one - and one needed a rare
perspicacity for it. It spoke about it in Einstein "
Ca turns to the sketch! The Langevin dead loss is scorned so much by
Banesh Hoffmann which it does not evoke only once an unspecified idea
of the large philosopher - nor a fortiori his "twins of Langevin" that
the relativistic ass charlatan Paty venerates!
There remains a joker! Page 203!
Gag! Photograph! The Solvay congress of 1927 with just sitted the
Langevin ass beside... Einstein
Debye, the Dirac, Compton, of Broglie, Bohr are relegated to the
second rank... but... which are pavanent in the forefront - sat coast
at coast - both inseparable Einstein and Langevin!
Ca does not seem to intrigue more than Ca the flatterer to see that
the Langevin cretin finds himself in the forefront of the Solvay
congress of 1927! What did he thus invent to deserve a similar honor?
{Note with rising generation: it is perhaps him - Langevin - the
string on which it is necessary to draw to make come the ball from the
plot from the anti-materialists in favour of idiocy relativity!}
In any case, three relativistic asses - Didier Lauwaert, Michel Paty
and Richard Hachel are for their expenses: There is strictly no trace
which could let suppose an unspecified compatibility of restricted
relativity and problem of the twins!
It any more but does not remain to seek the banderillas (conceptual
and factual) final to discredit both definitively ignares forums:
Didier Lauwaert and Richard Hachel
Let us quote Einstein Itself:
"an acceptable frame of reference in mechanics is called system of
inertia. The state of movement of a system of inertia, according to
mechanics, is not given in a single way by nature. On the contrary,
there is the following proposal: a frame of reference being driven
uniformly and straight line compared to a system of inertia is itself
a system of inertia. What one understands by "principle of restricted
relativity" is then the generalization of this proposal to any natural
process: any general law of the nature which is true relative with a
frame of reference K must be true for any K' system, which is in
uniform translatory movement compared to K.
The second principle on which the restricted theory of relativity
rests is the "principle of constancy the speed of the light in the
vide".(text of 1919 in Einstein "Designs scientific" Fields Flammarion
1990; original publication of the text London Times November 28 1919).
In addition, page 231 of the book signed by Infeld and Einstein, one
finds almost word for word this definition of 1919 ("evolution of the
ideas in physics " Fields Flammarion original 1983[édition 1938 ])
The 3 above-named cretins have what to understand that these words of
Einstein exclude any attempt to make return on Earth an unspecified
twin!
Page 214 of the last quoted work one finds even a "reduction ad
absurdum" of Einstein to show that a circular motion CANNOT concern
restricted relativity. This demonstration is more packed resumption of
the chapter of the Relativity of Einstein. In this chapter of the
second left "general relativity" Einstein examined already the case of
a character on a large horse-gear.
To see these texts leaves dreamer on the asses which pullulate in the
"scientific" forums and which still did not understand that problem of
the twins and restricted relativity were completely paradoxical,
completely incompatible and that only cowardice go-getter of Einstein
could be the cause of what it lunatic step definitively the Langevin
ass.
In conclusion, the materialists who know that the Earth is in front
of, then behind the Sun, understand that all is in acceleration and
perpetual deceleration (except for the insulated photons which them go
straight!)
The scientific revolution to come will indicate our absolute velocity
to us (objective) and the absolute direction of the trajectory of the
Sun, compared to the empty space of Democritos-Epicuros-Lucretius-
Newton.
The asses will go braire! Us 1000 euros per month will pay them so
that they are keep silent (or that they study - finally - Newton!)