If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body, he finds an infinitely
large mass occupying an infinitesimal volume, as the speed of light is
approached. This just does not feel, sound or look right, unless the
observer choses to reject his natural sense.

Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

On Jun 6, 3:02*pm, musada wrote:
If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body, he finds an infinitely
large mass occupying an infinitesimal volume, as the speed of light is
approached. This just does not feel, sound or look right, unless the
observer choses to reject his natural sense.

"I don't get it" is not a reason to reject a theory.

Common sense is worthless in physics. It has to be rebuilt.


Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

And you are an "idiot".


It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Maxwell's equations [Maxwell, Coulomb, Faraday, Ampere...] and the
principle of relativity [Galileo] imply special relativity.

Welcome to the late 19th / early 20th century.

On Jun 7, 1:02*am, musada wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body, he finds an infinitely
large mass occupying an infinitesimal volume, as the speed of light is
approached. This just does not feel, sound or look right, unless the
observer choses to reject his natural sense.

Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Remember the martyrs:

Herbert Dingle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle
http://www.nationalism.org/russamos/...roduction.html

Bryan Wallace:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 7, 1:40*am, Eric Gisse wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Jun 6, 3:02*pm, musada wrote:

If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body, he finds an infinitely
large mass occupying an infinitesimal volume, as the speed of light is
approached. This just does not feel, sound or look right, unless the
observer choses to reject his natural sense.

"I don't get it" is not a reason to reject a theory.

Common sense is worthless in physics. It has to be rebuilt.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. THE HERESY
OF HERESIES WAS COMMON SENSE. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

musada wrote:
If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body,[...]

Special relativity actually has neither of those, except length
contraction applies as a observational effect. Your inplicit assumption
that they affect the moving body itself is just plain wrong.


Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

Not true. Physicists seek theories that correspond to the real world in
larger and larger domains. Relativity does that, and theories of Galileo
and Newton do not. While Einstein was indeed a genius, it is the scope
and quality of his THEORIES that matters.


It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Nonsense. To do that is to abandon SCIENCE ITSELF, which is hopeless.
And relativity is not a "wilderness", except to fools who do not
understand it but still attempt to write about physics.


Tom Roberts

"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

Not true. Physicists seek theories that correspond to the real world in
larger and larger domains. Relativity does that, and theories of Galileo
and Newton do not. While Einstein was indeed a genius, it is the scope and
quality of his THEORIES that matters.

This assertion is false
Einstein's genius only consisted with which in indicating a mathematical
formula all experimental results on the condition c = constantly one can
transform. He wants to prove the world with that that the assertion is also
writeable. However, mur is a mathematical problem and this does not have to
do with a physical reality. He has demonstrated only something to the world.
It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Nonsense. To do that is to abandon SCIENCE ITSELF, which is hopeless. And
relativity is not a "wilderness", except to fools who do not understand it
but still attempt to write about physics.

False! Unless for fools who do not want to accept the dependence of c of the
field strength of the electromagnetic field
These principles are in my dynamic gravitation theory on my home page,
described beginnings into which
Dieter Grosch www.grosch.homepage.t online; de

On Jun 7, 11:00*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
musada wrote:
If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body,[...]

Special relativity actually has neither of those, except length
contraction applies as a observational effect. Your inplicit assumption
that they affect the moving body itself is just plain wrong.

Length contraction is a an absurd corollary of Einsteins 1905 false
light postulate Roberts Roberts. In a world different from Einstein
zombie world the deduction leading from the false postulate to the
absurd conclusions would be called "reductio ad absurdum":

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev

"t-online.de" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

Not true. Physicists seek theories that correspond to the real world in
larger and larger domains. Relativity does that, and theories of Galileo
and Newton do not. While Einstein was indeed a genius, it is the scope
and quality of his THEORIES that matters.

This assertion is false
Einstein's genius only consisted with which in indicating a mathematical
formula all experimental results on the condition c = constantly one can
transform. He wants to prove the world with that that the assertion is
also writeable. However, mur is a mathematical problem and this does not
have to do with a physical reality. He has demonstrated only something to
the world.
It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Nonsense. To do that is to abandon SCIENCE ITSELF, which is hopeless. And
relativity is not a "wilderness", except to fools who do not understand
it but still attempt to write about physics.

False! Unless for fools who do not want to accept the dependence of c of
the field strength of the electromagnetic field
These principles are in my dynamic gravitation theory on my home page,
described beginnings into which
Dieter Grosch www.grosch.homepage.t-online.de

Am Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:59:30 +0200 schrieb "t-online.de"
in in
sci.physics.relativity:

"Tom Roberts" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Modern physicists might have been "dazzled" by the "brilliance" of
Einstein, a "genius" who toppled Galileo, dethroned Newton and
overturned natural sense.

Not true. Physicists seek theories that correspond to the real world in
larger and larger domains. Relativity does that, and theories of
Galileo and Newton do not. While Einstein was indeed a genius, it is
the scope and quality of his THEORIES that matters.

This assertion is false

Let me get this straight. You assert that whether or not Relativity is
true does not matter, but whether or not Einstein was a genius does? Why
are you posting here then?

[...]
It is high time we abandon the wilderness of relativity and revert
back to Galileo, Newton, Coulomb and Maxwell and start from the basic
principles.

Nonsense. To do that is to abandon SCIENCE ITSELF, which is hopeless.
And relativity is not a "wilderness", except to fools who do not
understand it but still attempt to write about physics.

False! Unless for fools who do not want to accept the dependence of c of
the field strength of the electromagnetic field These principles are in
my dynamic gravitation theory on my home page, described beginnings into
which

So James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz and all were fools too? Let's see,
the equation defining c before Relativity was

c = 1 / sqrt [epsilon_0 * mu_0]

Where in this equation is "field strength" E or B?

[...]

Ich muß Ihnen wirklich sagen, der Tom Roberts weiß mehr über
Wissentschaft als Sie - leider.

--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!

On Jun 7, 12:30*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:00*am, Tom Roberts wrote:

musada wrote:
If an observer combines mass expansion with length contraction of the
theory of special relativity to a moving body,[...]

Special relativity actually has neither of those, except length
contraction applies as a observational effect. Your inplicit assumption
that they affect the moving body itself is just plain wrong.

Length contraction is a an absurd corollary of Einsteins 1905 false
light postulate Roberts Roberts. In a world different from Einstein
zombie world the deduction leading from the false postulate to the
absurd conclusions would be called "reductio ad absurdum":

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

old saw: http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum....ysics&tid=2847

The pole doesn't fit.

-Aut