Variable Speed of Light in France III
Is the absolute frame really a nonsense? Toulouse 4-6 November 2013, Marcel URBAN: "comparing Einstein relativity with Lorentz-Fitzgerald theory: Lorentz-Fitzgerald postulates: 1- Absolute frame 2- Rod contraction 3- Clock retardation. Einstein postulates: 1- All inertial frames are equivalent 2- Speed of light invariant. (...) Conclusion: An absolute frame is not necessarily nonsense!"
There is a third alternative, Marcel Urban:
Newton's emission theory postulates: 1- All inertial frames are equivalent 2- Speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter.
In 1887 the emission theory was the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment but later Fitzgerald and Lorentz procrusteanized lengths in the direction of motion so that the null result could become incompatible with the emission theory and compatible with the ether theory. Many people profited from this abuse of reality but the lion's share went to Einstein:
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Was it reasonable to assume that lengths contract in the direction of motion? According to today's Einsteinians, there can be nothing more reasonable than length contraction, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
Sébastien CHARNOZ: "Il faut bien comprendre que cette contraction n'est pas une illusion ! La règle est effectivement, et physiquement plus courte quand on l'observe depuis le référentiel en mouvement."
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji: "Chez Poincaré, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées sont réelles.....Chez Einstein, la contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées ne sont pas réelles: elles sont le résultat d'un effet de perspective."
Thibault Damour: "La "contraction des longueurs" avait, avant Einstein, été considérée par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik Lorentz. Cependant, ils la considéraient comme un effet "réel" de contraction dans l' "espace absolu", alors que pour Einstein il s'agit d'un effet de perspective spatio-temporelle."
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."
"Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."
Stéphane Durand: "Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas). De plus, si deux observateurs se mettent en mouvement à des vitesses différentes par rapport à la perche, ces deux observateurs vont mesurer une longueur différente de la même perche. Une situation inexplicable en termes de contraction matérielle de la perche."
Pentcho Valev
