PDA

View Full Version : Ritzian physics



Peter B
2002-May-28, 03:04 AM
Does anyone know anything about this? All I know is that it's supposed to provide some sort of alternative to Einstein's view of the universe.

Jigsaw
2002-May-29, 03:24 AM
Brace yourself. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

http://phaedra.apana.org.au/johna/ritz.html

honestmonkey
2002-May-29, 03:39 PM
For us dumb (but honest) monkeys (perhaps lazy is a better word than 'dumb'), does anyone have a summary of this thing. I read thru the faq, and the most I can come up with is that "it's different than relativity" and the guy is "a crank". What is different about it and how reasonable or unreasonable is it?

Wiley
2002-May-29, 04:20 PM
On 2002-05-29 11:39, honestmonkey wrote:
For us dumb (but honest) monkeys (perhaps lazy is a better word than 'dumb'), does anyone have a summary of this thing. I read thru the faq, and the most I can come up with is that "it's different than relativity" and the guy is "a crank". What is different about it and how reasonable or unreasonable is it?


I read as much as I could stand and still have not quite figured it out. However, SR rests on two postulates: 1.) the principle of relativity, i.e., no preferred reference frame, and 2.) the speed of light is constant for all reference frames. He apparently has no problem with postulate 1. but disagrees with 2. Now postulate 2. is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations. For Ritz to be right, Maxwell must be wrong.

He mentions adding a corrective term incorporating the relative velocity of source and observer. This leads one to ask, "do we need a corrective term?" The answer is no. Maxwell's equations are probably the best tested scientific theory we have. In 1905 Einstein had to chose between Maxwell and Newton; he chose Maxwell because of how well tested the equations are. After another 100 years of continuous testing, these equations have not been modified.

Wiley
2002-May-29, 04:27 PM
I should say that the posted link is rather "uncranky". He does not claim to be smarter than Einstein and he even provides an experiment that would falsify Ritz's theory.

honestmonkey
2002-May-29, 09:47 PM
On 2002-05-29 12:27, Wiley wrote:
I should say that the posted link is rather "uncranky". He does not claim to be smarter than Einstein and he even provides an experiment that would falsify Ritz's theory.


I only said that because he (the website guy) said that he was a 'crank', rather than a 'crackpot'.

I didn't read everything there, but there didn't seem to be any kind of summary, and I didn't want to invest a lot of time if there was nothing much to be gained. I thought that it was pretty well proven that the speed of light is constant.

Thanks for your insight.

Robert Fritzius
2002-Nov-08, 06:31 AM
Ritz did say that there were problems with Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic theory.

In essence he said that it [M-L] was elegant and here to stay but fundamentally inappropriate for the comprehensive laws for the propagation of electrodynamic actions.

You can see some original (translated) Ritz stuff at
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm