"Androcles" wrote in message
.uk...
"hanson" wrote in message
news:W%vEj.6009$sw3.622@trnddc06...
| no nad-"nade" aka Varney wrote in message
...
| "Androcles" wrote:
| "hanson" wrote in message
| news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
| | ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
| | "Androcles" wrote in message
| k...
| | great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
| | comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
| | who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
| |
| | Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
| | Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" promonade, Proletarian
| | Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" harald.vanlintel, Karandarse
| | Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Bia³ek"
| | , Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
| | But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor *******s
| | move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
| | Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
| | dumb****s, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
| | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
| | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
|
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/c515f2881d64b207
|
| Androcles wrote:
| Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
| I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
| In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
| http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif
| Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
| "After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine
| yourself being in the moving orange horizontal,
| you can see the light moving at c.
| While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
| looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."
| "In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?
|
| No nad-nade explains:
| What I simply meant is that ... Relativity will fail in a pure physical
| world.. but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
| nade

Andro wrote
de Nada hallucinates the kind of world we live in.

hanson wrote:
of course, that is a classic symptom of Einstein Dingleberryism.

| Andro continues:
| And that is after anal-yzing it well.
| I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.
|
| hanson continued:
| | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the 20th
| | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
| | ::AE:: .... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
| | ::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
| |
| | --- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
| | (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
| | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d
| | The nature and character traits of EDs:
| | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/498298f4a2794397
| |
| | Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
| | fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
| | his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
| | and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
| | ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| | ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In
| | ::AE:: that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air,
| | ::AE:: gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
| | ::AE:: modern physics." . [ & elsewhere]
| | ::AE::"why would anyone be interested in getting
| | ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
| |
| | Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
| | final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
| |
| | ::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
| | ::: who said
| | ::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th
| | ::: century will be characterized in history
| | ::: as the dark ages of physics."
| |
| | ::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
| | ::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition,
| ::: essentially associated with the names of
| ::: Marx, Freud and Einstein"
| | :::
| | ::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
| | ::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of
| | ::: reality? That is probably more a matter of faith than of proof."
| |
| | So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic disciples
| | of which you have garnered a set he.. the financially and
| | mentally poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries..
| | . for whose, "here-and-now earthly Seelen-heil" it should
| | be pointed out that in the real world, today,
| | == mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL ****"
| | == *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No ****"
| | == Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
| | == Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or
| | == not".
| | But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
|
| hanson wrote:
| no-Nad-Varney listen... here's a copy/retort from/for your other post.
| It's well meant, with concerns for your well being and benefit:
|
| no-nad-"nade" promenaded in [1] & [2]
...
.....
| his Einstein Dingleberry intellect, yearning in his abject worship:
| [1]
| If we can have holy week to commemorate the life of an
| non-existent man (Jesus doesn't truly exist historically, does he??)
| Why can't we have Einstein Week
| Einstein Week to be celebrated once a year around the world
| Who has the power to grant Einstein Week and make it part
| of holidays in the world? Can Bush do it?
| [2]
| Relativity will fail in a pure physical world..
| but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
| no-nad-nade Varney
|
| hanson wrote:
| ahahahaha.. Varney, you've have lost your nads, and your chance,
| to get your Einstein week, because of the comments you made
| in [1] which makes all the bible-beating Jesus disciples mad at
| you... and then [2] you killed all prospects for your EW with your
| own conviction of you not living in a real world...
| You are a loser, Varney!... Bad Scene, Varney!... ahahahaha....
|
| But listen, you still can advocate an annual ED parade, like the
| fabled doo-daa parades... Go for it. Partake and strut in there...
| They're filled with all sorts of intellectual & emotional perverts,
| Dingleberries, like yourself... You'll really feel to be very close
| to even more than just Albert's sphincter in your ED "promenade"
| Now get some nads again and include yourself by "promenading"
| yourself in that parade as the chief of all Einstein Dingleberries...
| You have made a good start in this NG. You have the right stuff.
|
| Thanks for the laughs , Varney... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson

Andro wrote:
hanson, Are you sure it isn't de nada's prominent pomade?

hanson wrote:
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... well, if that turns out to be so-n'such
then his pomade will serve poster no-gonad-"nade"-Varney at
least well enough to grease-up his own Dingleberries with it and
protect his own sphincter instead of only Einstein's... ahahaha...
But ED's have strange priorities though... ahahaha... ahahanson

On Mar 16, 4:51*pm, nade wrote:
...
Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity. He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories. Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.

maxwell wrote:
There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'.

This is plain and simply not true. SR was INSTRUMENTAL in leading
Einstein to GR, and remains as both:
A) the local limit of GR at any point in any manifold
B) the solution of the GR field equation for an empty universe
and the topology of R^4.


SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity.

Hmmm. Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics is incompatible with SR, but
the modern version of it is fully compatible with SR. Today we would say
that SR is a consequence of local symmetries of the universe we inhabit
(specifically: local Lorentz invariance).


He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories.

This was only "wasted" to those who do not understand what he was doing.
Yes, he did not succeed in unifying GR and electrodynamics. But in the
journey there was much to be learned....


Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.

The modern issues are MUCH more complicated than you seem to think.


Tom Roberts

On 17 mar, 00:51, nade wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:54 am, "Androcles" wrote:



Don't you know how to judge for yourself?

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which

specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

Troll kooks such as

Uncle Schwartzschit,
Blind Poe,
Moron McCullough,
Humpty Roberts,
Phuckwit Duck Draper,
Sad and Lonely sal Lawrence,
Tusseladd ASSistant professor Andersen,
Shrine to Spirits Nieminen,
Ghost ewill,
Goosey Gisse,
****** Olson,
Minor Crank Tom & Jeery,
Fecal Jekyll,
Bilewacky,
Dork Van de merde et. al.
fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism

between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown he
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...oSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

What he is claiming is that his "definition" is true for all frames of
reference. The absurdity that the velocity of light is the same
in all frames of reference is a consequence of that claim.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

["tj Frazir"]
If you pushed a rod 1 light year long the other end wont move for 1 year.

On 21 mar, 01:25, maxwell wrote:
On Mar 16, 4:51 pm, nade wrote: ...
Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity. He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories. Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.

"
There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. "

YOU ARE JOKING !!!

You must BUY Einstein's books !!!!

On 17 mar, 14:54, nade wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:12 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez

wrote:
nade wrote on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:21:46 -0700:

What do you think of the following paper written by this esteemed
physicist?

http://www.stardrive.org/Jack/PhippsEM.pdf

nad

I did explicit my opinion about Phipps Hertzian approach in a previous
post.

--http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt

Say, are you a normal or a crackpot? How come you have 13 stars with
one rating. Did the crackpots rate you or did the normal?

About Phipps.. do you think he is loose screw?

You must stop to use the word "crackpot"

crackpot ?

If Newton wrote here, it is exactly the insult which you would use
against him!!!
How I know it? Which evidence?
It is very simple:
I am a newtonist, in favour of Newton and I defend absolute space, and
the absolute velocities against the relativistic imbeciles!
And I receive spittles, the insults, calumnies (and even the threats:
Jacques Lavau) of the partisans of Einstein, same spittles, same
insults, same calumnies and same threats that would receive Isaac
Newton.

Si Newton écrivait ici, c'est exactement l'insulte que vous
utiliseriez contre lui !!!
Comment je le sais ? Quelles preuves ?
C'est très simple :
Je suis un newtoniste, partisan de Newton et je défends l'espace
absolu, et les vitesses absolues contre les imbéciles relativistes !
Et je reçois les crachats, les insultes, les calomnies (et même les
menaces : Jacques Lavau) des partisans de Einstein, les mêmes
crachats, les mêmes insultes, les mêmes calomnies et les mêmes menaces
que recevrait Isaac Newton.

"hanson" wrote in message
news:MeDEj.6973$i54.6680@trnddc05...
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| .uk...
| "hanson" wrote in message
| news:W%vEj.6009$sw3.622@trnddc06...
| | no nad-"nade" aka Varney wrote in message
|
...
| | "Androcles" wrote:
| | "hanson" wrote in message
| | news:1kbEj.16619$Id3.2721@trnddc07...
| | | ..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
| | | "Androcles" wrote in message
| | k...
| | | great stuff,... profound and incisive, as usual, but beyond the
| | | comprehension of any of parroting Einstein Dingleberries
| | | who tried to make their case for Einstein's crock... ahahahaha...
| | |
| | | Hey Andro, you sure do know how to flush out those virulent
| | | Einstein Dingleberries... like fade "nade" promonade, Proletarian
| | | Dunce PD-Draper, Hairy "harry" harald.vanlintel, Karandarse
| | | Dunno Dono, Toilet Dweller Wabnig, Saucepan Szczepan Bia³ek"
| | | , Variouos Kike Varneys and a host of others...
| | | But sadly, all your heroic efforts only make those poor *******s
| | | move closer to the warmth of Einstein's sphincter..... ahahaha...
| | | Actually, do have some pity for them. Those brainwashed poor
| | | dumb****s, all being damaged goods now, do not realize that
| | | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the
20th
| | | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| | | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
| |
|
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/msg/c515f2881d64b207
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | Me? Have pity? You misunderstand me, sir, pity would be an emotion.
| | I reserve emotion for those that matter, not for dingbats.
| | In matters of science I appear as this, blindfold:
| | http://www.spectator.co.nz/images/justice.gif
| | Why should anyone be interested in a clown that says:
| | "After analyzing it. Well. This is what I can comment. Imagine
| | yourself being in the moving orange horizontal,
| | you can see the light moving at c.
| | While for those at another frame of reference (in out seats
| | looking at the monitor for instance), it may seem longer."
| | "In out seats"? "it (c) may seem longer"?
| |
| | No nad-nade explains:
| | What I simply meant is that ... Relativity will fail in a pure
physical
| | world.. but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
| | nade
|
| Andro wrote
| de Nada hallucinates the kind of world we live in.
|
| hanson wrote:
| of course, that is a classic symptom of Einstein Dingleberryism.
|
| | Andro continues:
| | And that is after anal-yzing it well.
| | I can't have pity for a lunatic, it wouldn't do any good anyway.
| |
| | hanson continued:
| | | they have fallen victim to the greatest intellectual con of the
20th
| | | century.... DESPITE the fact that Einstein HIMSELF told them so
| | | with/in his many admonishments, ever since 1920....:
| | | ::AE:: .... "NOT to search at the same, now well lit places,
| | | ::AE:: .... where he, Einstein, had been working".
| | |
| | | --- More here about Einstein's Anus Mirabilis
| | | (= Albert's sphincter where his EDs do worship):
| | | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/9e824b27dab62a0d
| | | The nature and character traits of EDs:
| | | http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/498298f4a2794397
| | |
| | | Einstein's conscience finally caught up with him, when he was
| | | fessing up about the con of REL, ... one year before he folded
| | | his tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket, bit the grass
| | | and puffed, ... when/where he said to Besso in 1954:
| | | ::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
| | | ::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In
| | | ::AE:: that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air,
| | | ::AE:: gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of
| | | ::AE:: modern physics." . [ & elsewhere]
| | | ::AE::"why would anyone be interested in getting
| | | ::AE:: exact solutions of such an ephemeral set of equations?"
| | |
| | | Other Luminaries have followed suit agreeing with Albert's
| | | final realizations, insights and assessments, saying:
| | |
| | | ::: Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech (a student of Feynman),
| | | ::: who said
| | | ::: "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the 20th
| | | ::: century will be characterized in history
| | | ::: as the dark ages of physics."
| | |
| | | ::: or F.A Hayek, Nobel laureate, who said: "In the future,
| | | ::: Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition,
| | ::: essentially associated with the names of
| | ::: Marx, Freud and Einstein"
| | | :::
| | | ::: or John Beckman, an astronomy professor and Einstein disciple:
| | | ::: "The theory of relativity lives on. Is it a true picture of
| | | ::: reality? That is probably more a matter of faith than of
proof."
| | |
| | | So, like in any movement and/or religion there are fanatic
disciples
| | | of which you have garnered a set he.. the financially and
| | | mentally poverty stricken Einstein Dingleberries..
| | | . for whose, "here-and-now earthly Seelen-heil" it should
| | | be pointed out that in the real world, today,
| | | == mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL
****"
| | | == *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No
****"
| | | == Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the ****load"
| | | == Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is **** or
| | | == not".
| | | But thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha... ahahanson
| |
| | hanson wrote:
| | no-Nad-Varney listen... here's a copy/retort from/for your other post.
| | It's well meant, with concerns for your well being and benefit:
| |
| | no-nad-"nade" promenaded in [1] & [2]
|
...
|
.....
| | his Einstein Dingleberry intellect, yearning in his abject worship:
| | [1]
| | If we can have holy week to commemorate the life of an
| | non-existent man (Jesus doesn't truly exist historically, does he??)
| | Why can't we have Einstein Week
| | Einstein Week to be celebrated once a year around the world
| | Who has the power to grant Einstein Week and make it part
| | of holidays in the world? Can Bush do it?
| | [2]
| | Relativity will fail in a pure physical world..
| | but it so happens we don't actually live in one.
| | no-nad-nade Varney
| |
| | hanson wrote:
| | ahahahaha.. Varney, you've have lost your nads, and your chance,
| | to get your Einstein week, because of the comments you made
| | in [1] which makes all the bible-beating Jesus disciples mad at
| | you... and then [2] you killed all prospects for your EW with your
| | own conviction of you not living in a real world...
| | You are a loser, Varney!... Bad Scene, Varney!... ahahahaha....
| |
| | But listen, you still can advocate an annual ED parade, like the
| | fabled doo-daa parades... Go for it. Partake and strut in there...
| | They're filled with all sorts of intellectual & emotional perverts,
| | Dingleberries, like yourself... You'll really feel to be very close
| | to even more than just Albert's sphincter in your ED "promenade"
| | Now get some nads again and include yourself by "promenading"
| | yourself in that parade as the chief of all Einstein Dingleberries...
| | You have made a good start in this NG. You have the right stuff.
| |
| | Thanks for the laughs , Varney... ahaha... ahahaha... ahahahanson
|
| Andro wrote:
| hanson, Are you sure it isn't de nada's prominent pomade?
|
| hanson wrote:
| ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... well, if that turns out to be so-n'such
| then his pomade will serve poster no-gonad-"nade"-Varney at
| least well enough to grease-up his own Dingleberries with it and
| protect his own sphincter instead of only Einstein's... ahahaha...
| But ED's have strange priorities though... ahahaha... ahahanson
|

Today I'm more interested in finding out about Uff's hardon state...

"Alejandro Rivero" wrote in message
...
| On 10 mar, 09:05, "Androcles" wrote:
| "127.0.0.1" wrote in message
|

[Uff]
| ...
| At the author work "Modelof theindivisibleparticlesatclosedsystem
| ofsimultaneousequationsof themattermotioninpseudocurvedspace",
| St. Petersburg,1995 the structured particle present as a lepton both
| hardon states and, forming the atom into continuous transitional its
| states in the time.
|
[Andro]
| It that were English I'd ask about hardon states but I can already see
the
| reply would be totally incediberufal.
|
[Uff]
| original source here. Uff.
|
| http://www.shaping.ru/CONGRESS/engli...v/ratnicov.asp

[Andro]
Ok, tell us all about hardon states, Uff.

maxwell says...

On Mar 16, 4:51=A0pm, nade wrote:
...
Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'.

That's not at all correct. There is an intimate relationship between
Special Relativity and General Relativity, which is that Special
Relativity is the small-region limit of General Relativity.

Here's an analogy with Euclidean geometry. We all know how to
do Euclidean geometry on a plane: (1) A straight line is the
shortest distance between two points. (2) The measure (in degrees)
of the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180. (3) A right
triangle has sides with lengths related by A^2 + B^2 = C^2.

Now, instead of a flat plane, consider geometry on the surface
of the Earth (which is approximately a sphere).
The shortest distance between two points isn't a straight
line, it is what's called a "great circle" (on the Earth,
the lines of longitude are great circles). If you want to
know the quickest way to get from point X to point Y, you
find the circle whose center is the center of the Earth
that goes through X and Y. Along that circle is the shortest
path between X and Y.

In some ways, great circles are like "straight lines" of
planar geometry, but in other ways they are different.
If you take three points X, Y and Z on the surface of the
Earth, and make a "triangle" by taking the great circle
route from X to Y, then the great circle route from Y to
Z, then the great circle route from Z back to X, the
resulting triangle will have interior angles that add up
to greater than 180 degrees. If it is a right triangle
with small sides A and B, and large side C, then
A^2 + B^2 adds up to more than C^2. So the geometry of
great circles is not much like the geometry of straight
lines.

However, if you are not concerned with a big region of
the Earth, but only with a tiny region (maybe your back
yard), then the difference between a great circle and
a straight line becomes negligible. If in your back
yard, you make a triangle out of great circles, its
angles will add up to 180 degrees to the limits of
your ability to measure. If you make a right triangle
in your back yard, it's sides will satisfy the Pythagorean
theorem, to within the limits of your ability to measure
distances.

The conclusion is this: The small-region limit of
spherical geometry is planar geometry. An alternative
way to see the same conclusion is this: Instead of
having a *real* sphere, take many, many tiny planar
triangles and connect them together in 3D to form a
spherical "geodesic dome". If the dome is big enough
compared to the size of the triangles, then spherical
geometry can be used (approximately) to describe
the large-scale shape of the dome. But for small
scales, in a tiny region that only involves one or
two triangles, the dome will look like a section of
a flat plane.

The relationship between General Relativity and Special
Relativity is analogous. In a very large region of
spacetime, a region large enough to include planets and
stars, General Relativity looks very different from
Special Relativity. However, if you focus in on a small
region of spacetime (say, a few seconds in the inside of
an elevator that is in free-fall) General Relativity
becomes indistinguishable from Special Relativity.
Special Relativity is the small-region limit of General
Relativity. If your measurement devices (for measuring
times and distances) have limited precision, then in a
small enough region of spacetime, the predictions of
Special Relativity will be true (to the limits of your
ability to measure).

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Yanick Toutain dans son message
,
nous a fait l'honneur d'écri
Et je reçois les crachats, les insultes, les calomnies (et même les
menaces : Jacques Lavau) des partisans de Einstein, les mêmes
crachats, les mêmes insultes, les mêmes calomnies et les mêmes menaces
que recevrait Isaac Newton.
Meuh non!
Isaac Newton n'est pas à l'entartomètre, lui
--
Oncle Dom
_________
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/oncle.dom/

On Mar 20, 7:07*pm, Yanick Toutain wrote:
On 21 mar, 01:25, maxwell wrote:

On Mar 16, 4:51 pm, nade wrote: ...
Hi, uhm... if special relativity is wrong. It means General Relativity
is wrong too? If you believe they are both wrong. What do you
think is the cause of gravity?

There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. *SRT is a consequence of Maxwell's theory of electricity
and GRT is Einstein's theory of gravity. *He wasted the last 40 years
of his life trying to unify these two field theories. *Modern
theorists have wasted their own careers in attempting the same but
adding the complexity of the quantum.

"
There is almost no connection between Einstein's Special Theory of
Relativity (SRT) and his General Theory of Relativity (GRT) apart from
the (marketing) fact that they both include the exciting word
'relativity'. "

YOU ARE JOKING !!!

You must BUY Einstein's books !!!!
This is not even a reply.