On May 22, 11:11Â*am, PD wrote:
On May 18, 10:20Â*am, rbwinn wrote:





On May 17, 7:24Â*pm, " wrote:

On 17 mayo, 20:30, rbwinn wrote:

On May 17, 7:13�am, bz wrote:

rbwinn wrote in news:95a55775-9417-470a-b60d-
:

Well, what we have today is show business, not science. Â*Scientists
already put together nuclear explosions, core meltdowns, and atomic
waste using Einstein's theory. Â*I would not personally have imagined
any of those things using the mathematics that I use. Â*So there is the
matter of purpose involved also. Â*Scientists of today have an agenda
and purpose which they work together to achieve. Â*When I say, "Use
velocity of light instead of speed of light, and the question of light
traveling at c in two different frames of reference is solved,"
scientists ignore it because what they are doing is more complicated,
and they have already done all of these impressive things using speed
of light and the distance contraction. Â*What scientists are doing is
seeking attention for the purpose of getting government funding for
various experiments, as you say, which give scientists a comfortable
life without having to do much. Â*The more you can keep people confused
who control public revenues, the easier you see life to be.
Robert B. Winn

Have you ever applied for research funding? Have you ever even met a
"scientist" as you so name any person who do relativity research?
What is this agenda of the scientists? Are you making this up?
I have participated, colaborated and being the leader in several
research projects, and I can assure you that what you say about "give
scientists a comfortable life without having to do much" is not only a
lie but also a gratuite offense. Most researchers have to do research
because, especially in the academic world, your job continuity depends
on the researcher ability to:
a)get appropiate funding to be able to buy research equipment and
support a research team, including graduate students and technicians.
b)obtain good results from the funding (that is being very efficient)
that allow the team to publish results in conferences and indexed
journals, and finally,
c) use your research to improve your teaching.
Better universities and research institutions usually have also the
better researchers.
Nobody will get any funding without a good idea (among other things,
the available funding is always less than the requests from the
applications). And if you do not work, not only you will not get any
future money, but your job position may be shaking.
Regarding the researcher personal income, you'd be surprise at the
difference in income of a Ph.D. with say 10 years experience as a
professor, as compared with the income of the same person in the
industry.
Of course, some people get the Nobel Prize and for sure all of them
have dedicated most of their time to do research, because when you
enter into this profession, the important thing is not how much you
earn or how little you work, but the pleasure of being working in the
frontier of science.
So please get some real information before writing nonsense.

Well, the real information is that all scientists today agree that the
arm of an interferometer, the length of a train, ect., are contracted
in length if they move. Â*So I say, I don't believe it. Â*I think you
are doing the mathematics wrong. Â*What you appear to me to be saying
is that you have the right to do the mathematics wrong if a majority
of scientists decide to do it that way. Â*My opinion is that you have
the right to do the mathematics any way you choose to do it, even if
you are not in a majority, but incorrect mathematics is not generally
as successful as correct mathematics.

Fortunately, the mathematics in use does seem to work very well. In
experiment, in the design of practical objects, and as a critical
element in other physical models that also work very well.

Unfortunately, your mathematics hasn't been demonstrated to be useful
for very much at all.

Â*I would continue to search for
the correct mathematics regardless of how successful scientists are
with the incorrect mathematics.

Well, that right there says it all. Thanks. You go ahead. I'm sure
you're making wonderful progress, at least for killing time.

Well, I know it might seem odd to a scientist that methematics could
be used for something in the subject of relativity other than nuclear
explosions, core meltdowns, etc. If you want to call what I do
killing time, that would be up to you. What I do seems a little less
destructive than what scientists do with the same subject.
Robert B. Winn