Re: The theory of relativity is 100% wrong .......

From: Marcus Wellpoth (wellpoth_at_gmx.de)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:40:37 +0200

Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> news:9c1b39be.0410300913.1e947fa7@posting.google.com...
>
>>David Evens <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<fl4sn0p60jpvs9khnh4k2d1v0mqkvs8l9b@4ax.com>...
>
>>>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:55:27 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 22 Oct 2004 21:09:09 -0700, netspider4@lycos.com (Karl-Hugo
>
> Weesberg) wrote:
>
>>>>>Sorry, but this theory is rubbish and must be replaced by a new,
>>>>>better theory or mankind is doomed!
>>>>
>>>>As far as I can see, Einstein's version of relativity was never taken
>
> seriously
>
>>>>outside of the USA and GB. It is a western hoax, perpetuated by
>
> generations of
>
>>>>academic inbreeding.
>>>>
>>>>Most physicists elsewhere still accept the Ritzian view that light
>
> speed is
>
>>>>source dependent. Accordingly, the universe is much easier to
>
> understand.
>
>>>How would some like you, with no contact with the scientific
>>>community, and no knowledge of any language but English, know anything
>>>about what anyone outside the English-speaking world thinks about
>>>anything?
>>
>>He is right and you are wrong, left with your ad hominen weapon. The
>>same was true with Newton's laws. British and Americans taught them as
>>empirical laws. Continental Europe taught them as axioms. As a matetr
>>of fact, anyone knows and admits today that Newton's law carry no
>>empirical content at all.
>
>
> That is not quite true. Newton's third law carries empirical content.
> Carefully analyzed and suitably reformulated Newton's second and first law
> can be given empirical content eg the first law can be interpreted as
> inertial frames exist where inertial frames are defined by symmetry
> properties. Newton's second law as analyzed by Feynman shows it is 'half a
> law'. But even this difficulty can be overcome in an exact treatment. In
> modern times however, at least for advanced work, it has become standard
> practice to formulate classical mechanics from the POR and the PLA which
> avoids these problems from the outset, shows the connection between
> conservation and symmetry, and genralises more readily to QM and field
> theories.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are POR and PLA are standing for? I can figure out that it has to
do with Lagrangians, Noethers Theorem (Homogenity of space leads to
momentun conservation, Isotropy of space leads to angular momentum
conversation, Homogenity of time leads to energy conservation) and the
Hamiltonian principle but what does it exactly mean?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks
> Bill
>
> They are just metaphysical statements. Read
>
>>and learn: (MO is in the USA)
>>
>>http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/newton.html
>>
>>
>>Eveyone, I mean eveyone, outside USA and the UK, thinks SR and GR are
>>jokes. Well, SR is half joke, GR is paranoia at its best.
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>

mw

Relevant Pages