Re: The true crackpots
- From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:59:06 GMT
<mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1127982287.317479.165780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
|
| " The cuckoo transformations are based on ONE
| frame of reference moving at some velocity with respect to itself.
| PROOF:
|
|
| "If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k
| must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time. "
| http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
|
|
| Frame 1, "stationary" ----- x
| Frame 2, "moving" ----- x' = x-vt
| Frame 2, "moving" ----- xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
"
|
| No wonder that you arrived at such conclusion, the Einstein derivation
| of the LR is certainly not a logical masterpiece, see below:
|
| Restricted Relativity
| A Detailed Account of the Main Objections
| By Ali A. Faraj
|
| Excerpt:
|
| "7. General Remarks
|
|
| The representation of Einstein's theory in the form of postulates
| and deductions, has some resemblance to the method employed in
| Euclid's geometry. This similarity, however, is superficial.
| The Euclidean method is strictly top-down and deductive. Take
| for granted Euclid's axioms, and the consequences follow by logical
| necessity. This is not the case with the Einsteinian postulates.
| Unlike the axioms, these postulates are not at the top of the
| conceptual hierarchy. They are not simple, abstract, or self-evident.
| Furthermore, Einstein's postulates require modifications of space
| and time. Because these concepts are higher and more general than
| the postulates of relativity and constancy, the required reformulation
| can be done only by induction. Thus, by Euclidean standards, the
| representation above is upside down. This upside-down method is
| the main cause for making arbitrary decisions by Einstein at every
| turn in his theory [Rudakov, 1981]."
|
|
| Marcel Luttgens
Ok, so Einstein was a huckster. Notice that Ali / Rudakov missed the
DEFINITION (not a postulate)
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
as Einstein intended, and refers only to the postulates.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Further notice that the "Principle of Relativity" is given by the
EXAMPLE,
"the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet" and it is this POSTULATE that Einstein
QUESTIONS (but will not talk about) when he says:
" Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light
with the Principle of Relativity
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to
which light is propagated in empty space."
There IS a simpler law in physics, the PoR, and it remains
incompatible
with the stupid guess that light is propagated in empty space
independent of the source.
Androcles.
.
- References:
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: PD
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: Androcles
- Re: The true crackpots
- From: mluttgens
- Re: The true crackpots
- Prev by Date: c is time dependent !
- Next by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Previous by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Next by thread: Re: The true crackpots
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|