http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."
Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, you may go down into the history books as the
infamous, causal agent that has produced a pandemic of
unbearable fatal systemic stress rages in untold numbers
of Albert’s disciples, who are affectionately known as
Einstein’s Dingleberries, leading to their premature
earthly departure. — Now, if Einstein is going to be right
after all, they then will come back from youndern, as
vigorous and vicious youngsters of said criminal cult and
they will beat your aged wrinkled ass, …far worse than
they do now… So, prepare & protect yourself accordingly…
Thanks for the laughs… ahahaha… ahaha… ahahanson
"Pentcho Valev" <pva…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159078873.412257.18440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
> SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
> "Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
> be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
> Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
> from:
> Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
> gravity is false."
> Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
> based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
> case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
> Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
> SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
> "Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
> be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
> Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
> from:
> Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
> gravity is false."
> Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
> based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
> case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
physics. He was a below average student. At age 16, he could not have
wondered about photons. In college, he chased after the only skirt in
his class. Yes, his biological instinct is just like the rest of us
(well most of us males with masculine characters). Surviving lecture
notes scribbled by Einstein indicated he must have missed a lot of
classes as well as carelessness for physics. His grades did reflect
this.
2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
the Aether.
3. The concept of space and time forming a single unit called the
manifold to replace the Aether only occurred after 1908. Minkowski was
the first to propose such a ridiculous idea.
4. Einstein did not invent SR to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment. He had no references to prior works despite incorrectly
deriving the Lorentz transform and (E = m c^2). This is a very strong
case of plagiarism.
5. Referring to the Lorentz transform, relative simultaneity was
Poincare’s suggestion. This absurd idea can easily be proven wrong
by looking at the interference pattern of two beams of light. The
coherent and repeatable interference patterns can only suggest absolute
simultaneity. The Lorentz transform manifests relative simultaneity.
It leaves no room for coherent interference patterns.
6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
frame jumping handwaving. Yeah, while you are at it, do a couple more
jumping jacks. Miraculously, the clock paradox would then be resolved.
This is physics not Hollywood movies. Since there is no math to
resolve this paradox, you can safely say the Lorentz transform is
wrong. Since SR is an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, SR must
be wrong as well.
The rest of the paper starting with "Outgrowing Einstein" is total
BS as well as the rest of the article. However, it is beautifully
printed with pretty figures.
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159083754.831484.227760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
| 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
| the Aether.
|
Aether fails the Newton test.
RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
——————————————————————————–
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
Action at a distance:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
Showing Einstein wrong doesn’t make aether right. Show me aether.
Burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Androcles
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159083754.831484.227760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
>> SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
>> "Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
>> be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
>> Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
>> from:
>> Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
>> of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
>> gravity is false."
>> Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
>> based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
>> case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>> theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
> 1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
> physics. He was a below average student.
Koobee Wublee (aka Australopithecus Afarensis) rapes the
Lorentz transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
showing that he doesn’t even understand what the variables
mean
Dirk Vdm
"Sorcerer" <Headmas…@hogwarts.physics_b> wrote in message news:%VrRg.39844$wg.30234@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk…
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159083754.831484.227760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
> | 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
> | the Aether.
> |
> Aether fails the Newton test.
> RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
> ——————————————————————————–
> RULE I.
Make Sure You Get Your Orgasms In Public:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Androrgasm.html
Dirk Vdm
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
> frame jumping handwaving. Yeah, while you are at it, do a couple more
> jumping jacks. Miraculously, the clock paradox would then be resolved.
> This is physics not Hollywood movies. Since there is no math to
> resolve this paradox, you can safely say the Lorentz transform is
> wrong. Since SR is an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, SR must
> be wrong as well.
There is math to resolve it but O. Heaviside probably left it down
at the telegraph office with his lunch wrappers.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
Unfortunately for GR, it is an argument against, not supportive
of a ‘space-time continuum’ and that counter argument
is born out in experiment.
<< R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
accurate measurement with Snider.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1 >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 ‘Okun"
Sue…
Sorcerer wrote:
[...]
> Action at a distance:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif
The ‘spin’ axes (plural) in that phenomena are parallel to the
video monitor’s face (x,y).
You are showing circular motion about the z axis.
We appaude the honest disclosure of you prowess
in modeling magnetism.
Try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.innopro.de/maxwell_equations.htm
Sue…
[...]
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159083754.831484.227760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
>>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
>>>SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
>>>"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
>>>be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
>>>Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
>>>from:
>>>Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
>>>of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
>>>gravity is false."
>>>Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
>>>based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
>>>case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
>>>theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
>>1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
>>physics. He was a below average student.
> Koobee Wublee (aka Australopithecus Afarensis) rapes the
> Lorentz transformation:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
> showing that he doesn’t even understand what the variables
> mean
From "not interested in Physics" at 25 to Physics PhD at 26 doesn’t
sound like a "below average student", does it? That laughable
LorentzTale makes it pretty clear where the "below average" assessment
belongs, as if it wasn’t already crystal clear from that Howdy Doody
name it goes by.
"Sue…" <suzysewns…@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159093834.179656.65950@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com…
[...]
Try again.
"Sue…" <suzysewns…@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1159092866.752571.121090@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com…
[...]
Try again.
"jem" <x…@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:b9vRg.4184$Go3.3750@dukeread05…
| Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
| > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159083754.831484.227760@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com…
| >
| >>Pentcho Valev wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
| >>>SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
| >>>
| >>>"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
| >>>be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
| >>>
| >>>Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
| >>>from:
| >>>
| >>>Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
| >>>of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
| >>>gravity is false."
| >>>
| >>>Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
| >>>based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
| >>>case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
| >>>theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
| >>
| >>1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
| >>physics. He was a below average student.
| >
| >
| > Koobee Wublee (aka Australopithecus Afarensis) rapes the
| > Lorentz transformation:
| >
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
| > showing that he doesn’t even understand what the variables
| > mean
|
| From "not interested in Physics" at 25 to Physics PhD at 26 doesn’t
| sound like a "below average student", does it?
Yes it does. Very much so.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Non-accreditedSchools_78090_7.pdf#s...
Not interested in taxes at 25 to Chicago bootlegger at 26 doesn’t sound like
a below average Capone, does it?
That laughable
| LorentzTale makes it pretty clear where the "below average" assessment
| belongs, as if it wasn’t already crystal clear from that Howdy Doody
| name it goes by.
That laughable cuckoo misformation makes it pretty clear where the "below
average" assessment belongs, as if it wasn’t already crystal clear from
that jemima of a name it goes by.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm
> 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
> frame jumping handwaving.
You mean this, wacko?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
Or this, imbecile:
http://joanna90010.tripod.com/The_Twins_Paradox1.pdf
Or perhaps this, cretin:
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
Hanson, Einstein’s zombies have destroyed many heretical lives but my
primitive Balkan nature is immune to their outrages. Einstein was right
in 1911 when he proved himself wrong:
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]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front,
taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at
different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to
derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
hanson wrote:
> Pentcho, you may go down into the history books as the
> infamous, causal agent that has produced a pandemic of
> unbearable fatal systemic stress rages in untold numbers
> of Albert’s disciples, who are affectionately known as
> Einstein’s Dingleberries, leading to their premature
> earthly departure. — Now, if Einstein is going to be right
> after all, they then will come back from youndern, as
> vigorous and vicious youngsters of said criminal cult and
> they will beat your aged wrinkled ass, …far worse than
> they do now… So, prepare & protect yourself accordingly…
> Thanks for the laughs… ahahaha… ahaha… ahahanson
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159078873.412257.18440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> > http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
> > SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":
> > "Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
> > be subtly – and perhaps beautifully – wrong."
> > Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
> > from:
> > Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
> > of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
> > gravity is false."
> > Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
> > based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
> > case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
> > theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
> > Pentcho Valev
"Pentcho Valev" <pva…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159113413.193292.161160@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2630ad17d89...
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> Pentcho, you may go down into the history books as the
>> infamous, causal agent that has produced a pandemic of
>> unbearable fatal systemic stress rages in untold numbers
>> of Albert’s disciples, who are affectionately known as
>> Einstein’s Dingleberries, leading to their premature
>> earthly departure. — Now, if Einstein is going to be right
>> after all, they then will come back from youndern, as
>> vigorous and vicious youngsters of said criminal cult and
>> they will beat your aged wrinkled ass, …far worse than
>> they do now… So, prepare & protect yourself accordingly…
>> Thanks for the laughs… ahahaha… ahaha… ahahanson
[Pentcho]
> Hanson, Einstein’s zombies have destroyed many heretical
> lives but my primitive Balkan nature is immune to their outrages.
> Einstein was right in 1911 when he proved himself wrong:
[hanson]
You are the man, Pentcho. BTW, the Balkan people are NOT
primitive in their mature, only the Einstein Dingleberries
amongst them are. Here is the link to your entire post, Pentcho
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/693be4fca8a...
and be reminded that you are a man of potentially great acclaim
but you should not post and publish that your crusade is based
on your feelings of revenge. That would be primitive… ahahaha..
But Penchto do carry on with your essential mission to eradicate
the criminal cult of Einstein’s Dingleberries… ahahaha… ahaha…
BTW to demystify any linguistic translation quirks you may consult
about the definition and meaning of "Dingleberry" here:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dingleberry
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Dingleberry
You are of course aware that you are far from being alone
in your quest… and the hand writing is on the wall about the
demise of Einstein’s relativity phantasms & his "criminal cult"
of/by Einstein’s Dingleberries which is seen in the fact that
the Bavarians have made GR/SR courses NOT mandatory
any longer in their Univs physics curriculum since/in 1996 and
on about Sept 2005 I glanced at a post from a US student who
wondered what book to study about GR since it was no longer
offered at his University in the US… !!!!.
At the end 2005 even the Brits’ conservative Royal Society has
voted Einstein out and favors Newton… ahahahaha… AHAHAHA…
More here in:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/a559fbb84a4f50c7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/2648ad46c2b830dc
Enjoy, take care, thanks for the laughs and carry on, Pentcho.
ahahaha… ahahahanson
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
rambus2…@yahoo.com wrote:
> Koobee Wublee, the Howdy Doody wrote:
> > 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
> > frame jumping handwaving.
> You mean this, wacko?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
> Or this, imbecile:
> http://joanna90010.tripod.com/The_Twins_Paradox1.pdf
> Or perhaps this, cretin:
> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
The Lorentz transform manifests the following two properties.
** Constancy of the speed of light everywhere and every direction
** Principle of Relativity where the observations between two
observers on the same observed target under the same conditions must be
the same regardless if there is any relative speed between these two
observers.
Einstein, in 1905 without referencing to prior works,
** Proposed the postulates as described properties above.
** Principle of Relativity which manifests relative simultaneity as
already pointed by Poincare.
In doing so, Einstein re-derived the Lorentz transform with totally
gibberish math. Although decades later, Einstein would attempt another
derivation of the same transform. Again, he did so with equal
absurdity. If anyone wants to discuss Einstein’s derivation of the
Lorentz transform, I would love to oblige. In the meantime, the second
property of the Lorentz transform or the same second postulate of
Einstein to derive the Lorentz transform violates the everyday
experience. This includes the Twin’s paradox. Bringing up proper
time just does not work. Bringing on GR also does not work either.
Does anyone want to discuss these issues in a gentlemanly and logically
fashion?
Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...]
> Does anyone want to discuss these issues in a gentlemanly and logically
> fashion?
Discussion implies familiarity with the subject under discussion.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffGeoAero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRBogus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReasonLaws.html
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> rambus2…@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee, the Howdy Doody wrote:
> > > 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
> > > frame jumping handwaving.
> > You mean this, wacko?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
> > Or this, imbecile:
> > http://joanna90010.tripod.com/The_Twins_Paradox1.pdf
> > Or perhaps this, cretin:
> > http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
> The Lorentz transform manifests the following two properties.
> ** Constancy of the speed of light everywhere and every direction
> ** Principle of Relativity where the observations between two
> observers on the same observed target under the same conditions must be
> the same regardless if there is any relative speed between these two
> observers.
> Einstein, in 1905 without referencing to prior works,
> ** Proposed the postulates as described properties above.
> ** Principle of Relativity which manifests relative simultaneity as
> already pointed by Poincare.
> In doing so, Einstein re-derived the Lorentz transform with totally
> gibberish math. Although decades later, Einstein would attempt another
> derivation of the same transform. Again, he did so with equal
> absurdity. If anyone wants to discuss Einstein’s derivation of the
> Lorentz transform, I would love to oblige. In the meantime, the second
> property of the Lorentz transform or the same second postulate of
> Einstein to derive the Lorentz transform violates the everyday
> experience. This includes the Twin’s paradox. Bringing up proper
> time just does not work. Bringing on GR also does not work either.
> Does anyone want to discuss these issues in a gentlemanly and logically
> fashion?
Yes, cretin
What in the previous post did you not understand?
> 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
> frame jumping handwaving.
You mean this, wacko?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
Or this, imbecile:
http://joanna90010.tripod.com/The_Twins_Paradox1.pdf
Or perhaps this, cretin:
http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub…@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1159163622.110213.209290@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> rambus2…@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee, the Howdy Doody wrote:
>> > 6. The Twin’s paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
>> > frame jumping handwaving.
>> You mean this, wacko?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twins_paradox
>> Or this, imbecile:
>> http://joanna90010.tripod.com/The_Twins_Paradox1.pdf
>> Or perhaps this, cretin:
>> http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
> The Lorentz transform manifests the following two properties.
Property 1:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzTale.html
Property 2:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/WhatWrong.html
Dirk Vdm