Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)


Norman Bates schreef:


Ja Jan, let us all see your PhD thesis. Oh, and please don't try to impress
anyone that you know what recursion means, you sound like a mechanic who
just learned what a synchromesh is. You shouldn't be angry because Dirk
made a fool out of you, you asked for it. You could have approached the
whole thing as the armature that you are and asked questions - respectfully.

Dirk made a fool of himself by questioning my identity, and by
displaying trivialities on his homepage.

I could have approached the whole thing as an amature, but I am not an
amature. It is true that I have not much experience with the
mathematical apparatus of SR/GR, but I am able to see the final
consequences of SR/GR and I understand why this is absurd, and so why
Relativity has to be rejected as a valid description of reality. That
some of my attempts to prove Relativity invalid do not impress everyone
on this forum is because some people seem to take mathematical
consistence of the calculation apparatus as a proof of validity.

I admit immediately that my approach is bold but I don't see why a
forceful attack on ideas has to be responded to with personal attacks.
After all it is NOT as clear cut with Relativity as some suggest on
this forum. Recent experiments with the Bell-inequalities and the
HK-experiment give plenty reason for a critical reconsideration of
Relativity.

Of course Relativity is plain nonsense. This follows from global
observations without having to take into consideration detailed
calculations. All matter in the universe has a global momentum that was
fixed at the Big Bang on T=0. This momentum and corresponding velocity
defines one inertial frame as a special absolute zero frame. This zero
frame did emanate from static laws, since Big Bang is somehow a
consequence of static laws of the universe. So there is one absolute
inertial frame favoured by the laws of nature AND THEREFORE NO
RELATIVITY. That gives me a comfortable position. There is no
Relativity, and concrete calculations on SR/GR must somehow/somewhere
contain flaws. They are either inconsistent or in conflict with
realitiy. My postings until now are nothing more than an attempt to
discover at what point the majority on this forum is fooling
themselves.

Regards, Jan.

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Neck of God: Einstein or Lorentz?
    ... "You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a ... preferred inertial frame that is empirically ... But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are ...
    (sci.math)
  • The Neck of God: Einstein or Lorentz?
    ... "You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a ... preferred inertial frame that is empirically ... But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are ...
    (sci.astro)
  • The Neck of God: Einstein or Lorentz?
    ... "You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a ... preferred inertial frame that is empirically ... But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR says, "The Earth is the Centre Of The Universe".
    ... then all the pulses moving in any one ... SR only claims that vacuum light speed measured in any inertial frame ... the considered light ray and Earth velocities in the Solar System ... Remember that I accept 1905 Relativity second postulate (and also the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Basic relativity question.
    ... Yes relativity is counter intuitive - but very important. ... When you are moving relative to a stationary rod all you ... A given clock PROJECTS a spacetime interval ... be considered what is called an inertial frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)