Re: Who will stun the world as next Einstein?

From: Jeany (ctiei_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/23/05 

Date: 23 Feb 2005 04:12:35 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Jeany" <ctiei@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109157438.920849.150360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Please take a short time to check formula (1-30) in TAST with your
> > calculator.
> > You can find the data of planets in the textbooks or astronomy
books.
> > However, we have checked it and got stunned!
> >
> > I would think it is the greatest formula after Einstein's. There
are
> > only a few theoretical, not experiential, math expressions in
> > astronomy. This is "killing" me and you all. Can you save me and
> > yourself?
> >
> > Besides, kindly look at "So simply do we express the dispersion
effect
> > by deflection of space-time and get the same formula as Compton's."
>
> As you have seen, the entire text becomes useless as from
> the first section of the first chapter, so I am not tempted to
> spend my time, looking at anything that is ultimately deduced
> from the trivial and useless fact that 0 = 0, trying to find the
> exact place where another set of (accidental or deliberate)
> misunderstandings or errors is introduced in order to
> 'spectacularly' reproduce an already known result of the
> theory with which the text is manifestly in destructive conflict.
> [Gasp.]
> When every reference to special relativity is carefully
> removed from the first part, I might have a look at what
> comes next.
> Until then the text is effectively Dead On Conception.
> So, first see what your teacher and the webmaster have
> to say :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

How did you get 0 = 0 from TAST?

Why do wrong principles give correct conclusions and derivations?

You seem to me that you are not professional, negating TAST just in the
same way as those armatures negating SR.

Jeany

Relevant Pages