Re: DECE SE FOLOSESTE NUMELE STAMENIN


"Hayek" <hayektt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:491e94d2$0$189$e4fe514c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stamenin wrote:
In multe teme costat ca se foloseste numele meu Stamenin si nu sunt
publicate articole mele. Din pacate articolele mele sint scrise in
limba engleza si nu le pot traduce acum in limba romana. Eu sint
convins ca teoria lui Einstein est cu totul gresita si deacea in
scrierile mele apar argumente numai in favoarea lui Newton. Eu sint
tare desamagit ca vorbitori de limba engleza nu vor sa accepte
adevarul acesta. Citind articole despre sustinerea lui Einstein si lui
Newton am putut chiar sa aflu ca englezi au votat in academia lor si
in Parlamentul lor in favoarea lui Newton iar germanii au creat o
comisie care sa adune argumente in favoarea lui Einstein. Pentru mine
acest lucru este foarte curios. Deaceea acest articol il public in
limba Engleza dar daca va fi reusita aceasta incercare voi face
eforturi sa traduc in viitor articole in limba
romana.

THE VICIOUS CIRCLES IN PHYSICS

In mine previous article about the Galilei Principle of relativity I
have used the term, vicious circles in physics. In this article I like
to give a larger explanations about them.
The assumption that physics is in crisis could be explained by the
existence of the vicious circles in physics. A vicious circle in
physics can be defined as being a state in science in which a
discovery (a knowledge) produces as an effect a new discovery, which
by its self returns us in previous state.
Such vicious circles exist in all three theories known by their
author?s names: Galilei- Newton, Laurentz Ether theory, and Einstein
Relativity.
1) In Galilei-Newton theory such a vicious circle was created by the
discovery of the first law of the mechanics, the law of inertia by
Galileo Galilei. The definition of this law says: A material body upon
which do not act external forces, continues in a state of rest or of
uniform motion in a straight line. Based on this law Newton defined
the absolute coordinate system and the relative coordinate system
corresponding to the two states: of rest, and of uniform motion in a
straight line.
But by this the situation didn?t become clearer. We can?t determine
an absolute system of coordinates, and the problem is returned to the
first law of the mechanics. The definition of the absolute and
relative space doesn?t help too, because these notions are impossible
to be determined too. This is a classic vicious circle and is not
resolved until now. The state of rest and the state of uniform motion
obviously was impossible to be determined because such a material body
could not be find in a large portion of the space where do not exist
gravitational forces.
That is why Newton?s absolute coordinate system is considered as being
a fiction and many scientists are trying to refute his theory.
2) Einstein tried to avoid this vicious circle by defining the
Galileian coordinate system, by the following definition: ?A system of
coordinates in which the state of motion is so, that the law of
inertia holds relative to it, is called Galileian system of
coordinates?. And Einstein adds: ?The laws of the mechanics of Galilei-
Newton can be regarded as valid only in Galileian systems of
coordinates?. This is a classical example of vicious circle too
because the definition and the conclusion are reciprocally linked and
no one helps to be determined the other notion. Because by this
definition we can?t know how to determine a Galileian system of
coordinates, (what is in fact similar with the Newton?s absolute
system of coordinates), we are determined to return back to the law of
inertia. This in reality is the same vicious circle with that of the
Newton?s definition of the absolute system of coordinates and Einstein
passed the exam by tricking the scientists.
3) In Ether theory is supposed a need to be introduced the notion
ether as being necessary for the explanation of the wavy nature of the
light rays. Until now is not clarified if the light is corpuscular or
it is wavy, but this doesn?t matter for the adepts of the Ether
theory. The ether was supposed, as being a substance very fine, which
doesn?t create forces of friction with the planets and stars, but
nobody can determine its existence simply because it is simply a
supposition and not a reality.
Obviously the ether is a wrong replacement for the absolute system of
coordinates, and is not a surprise that is impossible to be determined
too. So we can see that the same vicious circles appear in this theory
too, without having a possibility to be resolved.
Consequently, we can realize that we have three theories with a same
problem; the apparition of a same vicious circle and none of these
theories has a solution about it.
The difference between these theories is that the Einstein theory and
the Ether theory have a wrong additional problem, the use of the
Lorentz transformation as a mathematical mean for the description of
the motion of the material bodies. The LT is an errant mathematical
relation because it is an approximation of the GT. By the use of this
transformation there appear many misinterpretations and unclear
questions and what is worst it gives mistaken results in calculus that
have done a real mess in physics.
In any case, it is clear that these three theories cant be all valid,
and we can accept, that only one of them can be valid or none. To
negate the Newton theory we have to negate the three laws of the
mechanics and the law of the universal attraction that are the only
real and practical means for the interpretation of the mechanical
phenomena at the earth. Have the other two theories anything similar,
to replace these laws? Not, of course not. And I affirm that only
these laws can be used for a definitive solution of this in fact
unique vicious circle.
In my participation on the discussions of this group I have explained
the nature and the cause why this vicious circle appears. For me it is
evident that this unique vicious circle is the cause why physics has
entered in crisis.

How to solve them all :

Apply Mach's principle.

What the *** is this vague principle you keep ranting about?




.

Quantcast