Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: "Norman Bates" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:56:32 +0200
<jan.verheul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1164724011.439208.237860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jan, sorry, but I want to insist on seeing your thesis, if you don't mind.
Norman Bates schreef:
Anyway I think you will find that if you approach the people here
respectfully you can learn a lot from them and you will discover that
they
are mostly very friendly and very intelligent indeed.
The fact is that I did not approach anyone unrespectfully on this
forum. I did say harsh words about Relativity, but in my view there is
a big difference between attacking ideas and attacking individuals. If
I am attacked personally by being called "imbicile" and by putting my
statements in a "cabinet" with fumbles, yes, then I am also drawn into
personal hostilities.
I am convinced that there is no velocity symmetry in the universe and
that there is one special "zero" frame, favoured by the laws of the
universe. This is based on global insight and by reasoning that is in
my view waterthight. This justifies a bold approach. Ideas that are
wrong have to be attacked forcefully. Whoever answers this with
personal attacks only shows weekness in theoretical respect, since the
only way to counter my statements is to prove that they are wrong.
This did not happen, at least not on a convincing way to all my
experiments/evidence. There is no consensus on how to interpret
HK-experiment and I have not seen a conflictfree calculation for the
two clocks in orbit experiment.
Of course no one has anything to say against the simple observation
that the universe has a global momentum (also measurable by
red/blueshift of CMBR) and therefore a favoured zero inertial frame. At
the end of the day I am right. That's a comfortable position from which
I can make bold statements.
Regards, Jan.
I know that you have nothing to prove, but you offered it as proof that you
are who you say you are and that you are who you claim to be, so I want to
see it. If you don't want to you can send it to me at dhjoubert that would
be at gmail.com. Don't give me excuses, I have a MSc in computer science so
I will understand it.
.
- References:
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: karandash2000
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: jan . verheul
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: Norman Bates
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: jan . verheul
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: Norman Bates
- Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- From: jan . verheul
- Re: Jan Verheul - cretin
- Prev by Date: Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- Next by Date: Re: "Is There a Force of Gravity?"
- Previous by thread: Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- Next by thread: Re: Special Relativity is Dead (second proof)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|