http://www.sps.ch/fr/artikel/geschichte_der_physik/walter_ritz_the_revolutionary_classical_physicist_2/
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. Be it as it may, Ritz
remains in the history of physics as an admirable figure, with a
highly original theoretical turn of mind and an impressive command of
mathematical methods, making him one of the emblematic theoreticians
of his time. In retrospect, if he refused to adhere to the ongoing
physics revolutions, he was highly aware of what kind of fundamental
problems were at stake, and already this lucidity ranks him among the
best."
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; and finally that we should renounce use of (...) the
notion of field..."
The divine plagiarist also abandoned the notion of field at the end of
his life:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"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."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"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."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
A circle is endless in a way to itself. All points are the same.
The universe is higher round continuous comming back together in the
4th dimension's boundary.
The speed of light is based upon epsilon and mu, as found from
Maxwell's travelling wave equation. That is a constant all right,
within the homogenous medium of course.
Light is wave motion.
Wave motion is just like particle motion, as the Doppler effect
abundantly shows.
Thus
c(V) = c(mu,ep) + V,
which means, that the velocity of light is the speed of light plus or
minus the velocity of the emitter, within any given frame of
reference. In our case this frame of reference happens to be the
Earth which is moving in aether with a tangential velocity V around
the Sun.
Now the entire solar system is moving in the universe, within the
galaxy, and our galaxy is also moving among other galaxies. All this
is in aether, a solid that supports the travel of electomagnetic
waves, of which light is a part. We do not know such velocities as
well as we may know the value of V, but for practical purposes at
present that does not matter.
In other words, every ray of light may have a slightly different
velocity with respect to other rays of light, all dependent upon the
motion of what emits it.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
The speed of light is based upon epsilon and mu,
=====================================
Bullshit. You've never measured epsilon for a vacuum and never will,
you fucking useless imbecile.
http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, according
to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the
velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two
fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to
which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might
think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.
But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the
special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of
validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."
Divine Albert's logic in the above text: In a gravitational field, the
speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational
potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary
with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is
constant. This can only mean that Divine Albert's 1905 constant-speed-
of-light postulate is true, absolutely true. The antithesis, the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light and showing
how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter
relative to the observer, is false, absolutely false.
Initially, Divine Albert's logic makes believers fiercely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity" but in the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers
tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"jon car" wrote in message
news:2cd25909-9803-475b...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...