"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.
To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"eleaticus" skrev i melding . ..

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

Thanks for demonstrating that the inverse transform give the original
equation, thereby proving that my transform was correct.
That was very kind of you.


LOL LOL LOL

What a maroon! When challenged to produce an equation that is not invariant
when put in difference form he produces one in difference form - without
realizing it - and now pretends to have been producing one that is
invariant?

eleaticus

To sum it up:
The equation for a stationary circle in the unprimed frame:
(x-1)^2 + (y-1)^2 + (z-1)^2 = 1
transformed by the Galilean transform:
x'=x-ut, y'=y-vt, z'=z-wt.
is the equation for a moving circle in the primed frame:
(x' -(1-ut))^2 + (y'-(1-vt))^2 + (z'-(1-wt))^2 = 1
which is clearly not an invariant transform.

Eleaticus has proven that this equation is correct, and thus
- without realizing it - that it does not transform invariantly,
and now pretends to have proven it is invariant.

Well done anyway, even if you don't know what you have done.

Correct by accident? :-)

Paul

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us how the GPS system doesn't work.

To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.
To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"RP" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:
"RP" wrote in message
...


Androcles wrote:

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...



Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.


Hey stooopid - tell us the velocity of light is always c when we walk
toward a light and away from a different one.

Androcles.

Relativity of simultaneity. It's a matter of the time t_0 that you
define
the photon to have been emitted, and of the distance away that you define
the source to have been at t_o. Given the premise of empty space you can
define these values as you so chose, since it is in fact impossible to
directly measure OWLS in empty space. That's how constancy of light
speed
is accomplished.


LOL! too funny. I could have summarize the whole thing with
(c+v)/(1+v/c) = (c-v)/(1-v/c), which represents Einstein's stooopid
method
of adding velocities.
I'll tell you how I define the time tau_0 that the photons were emitted.
It is 0. I define the time tau_1 when the first photon reaches me
as the distance divided by its velocity, which is x' divided by (c o v),
where 'o' is the composition of velocity operator such that (c o v) =
(c+v)/(1+v/c)
Thus tau_0 = tau_1 - x'/(c o v) = 0.
I'm the one moving between two light sources so that it is my clock that
runs slow.
As for t_0, that's easy.
tau_0 = (t_0-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Of course I'd have to define x, wouldn't I?
Well, that's not quite so easy, because I can only measure xi, my ruler
shrinks
as I move. It's called Lorentz contraction. Fortunately the distance to
the source
shrinks as well, so I still get the correct measurement.
xi = (x-vt ) / sqrt (1-v^2/c^2)
Using the Andersen Transforms,
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

The time t_0 = (tau_0 - xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
and since x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),

t_0 = (tau_0 - (x + vt_0)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

As I proved, tau_0 is zero. Do not forget t_0 is a coordinate.
But anyway, since I'm moving away from one source and toward
another, I'll solve for v.
Now, the light is coming toward me from the front and from behind
me from the rear, meeting in the middle, and I only have one velocity v.
So the light from the front has velocity -1 (I want v as a fraction of c)
and the light from behind has velocity +1.

Now, Einstein says (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c.
Carefully, let us enter values.

(-c + v)/(1 + v/-c) = (c+v)/(1+v/c),
Since c = 1,
(-1+v)/(1-v) = (1+v)/(1+v)

And look, conveniently (1+v)/(1+v) = 1,
so
(-1+v)/(1-v) = 1
Multiplying by 1 - v,
-1+v = 1-v
Adding 1,
v = 2-v.
adding v
2v = 2,
dividing by 2,
v = 1.
I'm approaching one source at c and leaving the other at -c.

That's why Al Schwartz is stooopid, and so was Einstein and all his
disciples.
No one has spotted Einstein's divide-by-zero in 100 years, except me.
Want to know why?
They don't look for it. They prefer to believe in fairy tales.
Here it is, buried in he
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))

You'll need to look carefully to find it.

If v = c then the division by zero is apparent.

That's not it.
This little equation contains x', previously defined as x-vt.
The actual division comes later... I mislead you. I had intended to include
the equations that follow, my omission and my apology.
You can find the full text at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

OTOH, this is why
Einstein called c a limiting velocity, in that allowing
v = c leads to undefined or imaginary or outcomes. c isn't a valid
relative velocity between two frames. When you come to a division by zero
you need to back up and take a different route, else you will indeed
derive contradictions. But that's not the real problem here. If you'll
compare your premise with the actual relativistic velocity composition
formula, you'll immediately see your error; you've omitted a term.

Not my error, it's not my equation. Einstein neglects to use his own (c o v)
in it.
Instead, he specifically states:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."

We'll put that in, so it looks like this:
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(cov)+x'/(cov))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(cov))

And what hat does he pull the 1/2 from?

Keep looking.



OTOH, space isn't in reality empty, as special relativity
presupposes it to be.


Reality? We are not dealing in reality. We are dealing in assumption.
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
Reference :
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Not an assumption, it is a "definition". There is a substantial difference
between the two.

In a computer program i the "C" language, I'd write

#define V (c+v)/(1+v/c)

That's both a definition AND an assumption.
Had Einstein used his "definition" he'd have derived c+v.
As I said, we are not dealing with reality.



Space really is empty, my friend, except for some stars as planets
and bit of dust and gas dotted around.

Without those stars and dust etc. lying around, there would be no space.
Thus "empty space" is as meaningless as "dimensionless extended objects"

"Space" is a synonym for "nothing".
What is between the stars? Nothing.
What is between the stars? Space.
What is between the stars? Emptiness.
What is between the stars? Void.
Zero (0) is a useful symbol in mathematics, it is not "meaningless".
Anyway, it is Einstein's phrase, not mine.
I suppose he could have said
"light is always propagated in the empty void nothing called space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body"
I'd have still understood his meaning even though I disagree with it.
Did you want to discuss physics, or Einstein's semantics?
I'm only quoting what he said. Nor do I make error in quoting his equation,
so you should retract your accusation.





IOW, the distance of the source at t can be compared
to some nearby physical marker, perhaps another clock that has been
synchronized with the observer's clock and is comoving with him. The
measurement becomes a simple matter of comparing time readings on the two
clocks and their permanent spatial separation. Not a very complicated
experiment in theory. When taking absorption/emission of photons in a
media into account, Fizeau's experiments are already a form of that very
experiment, and show conclusively that Galilean velocity addition is
empirically supportable in the case of light propagation. Surely by now
you've seen my mathematical proof of this statement?


Can't say I have, we've not corresponded much.

It's just Galilean average speed "composition", that happens to agree
equally as well with Fizeau's measurements.


The bottom line is that logical premises have no bearing whatsoever on
reality, only on ones interpretation of it.


Let us not pretend Einstein's premises are logical.

They are logically consistent even though illogically originated.

No, sorry. There is nothing consistent, logical or otherwise, about the
statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory.
Do we need to get out the dictionary definition of "consistent"?




Our every thoughts are a
superficial symbolic form of reality, a progression of data through many
subjective filters, of what may well be uite beyond our natural system of
logic to ever produce a one-to-one correspondence to. Thus we are
constrained to perpetually obtain an unsatisfactory logic conclusion
about
reality, even if it happens to also be practical. Practical, because
one-to-one correspondence isn't necessary for the completion of our
rather
simplistic (by comparison to nature) endeavors. Just consider for a
moment
how much detail of nature you must actually observe in order to carry out
your daily activities. Virtually none by comparison. We live and breath
and have our very being in what is not even reality, but just a
statistical pattern of behaviors within it. Those patterns being our
reality. Our very existence, i.e. the "idea" of our existence itself,
requires a statistical perspective.
Richard Perry


Well, that is all very philosophical, Richard, but I'm quite practical
and
I believe empirical data. I interpret it somewhat differently to the rest
of
the world, though. The vector addition of velocities is sacrosanct, the
composition of velocities is nonsense, and the evidence can be found
in the stars.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm

Again, I'm going to have to refer you to the Galilean "composition" of
speeds, in which it is shown that you are incorrect;

You call empirical data "incorrect"?


even given a Galilean context simple addition of velocities isn't
necessarily going to be the correct method.

I do not agree. When two cars travel side by side at 60 mph, there GALILEAN
relative velocity is zero. 60 - 60 = 0. If it were not exactly zero, one car
would be
gaining on the other, which is against the supposition that they travel
side-by-side.


The problem is in the mistaken premise of uniform velocity, which doesn't
apply in every situation,

Yes it does, by definition of uniform.


Fizeau's being one of those, since the light is absorbed and emitted, and
thus moving for a portion of the time at the same speed as the media
(water). Simply velocity addition doesn't apply to the values W, v, and w.
The latter of which, BTW, is the term that you omitted from your argument
above.


In a tube, water's velocity is at its greatest at the centre and least at
the tube walls.
It can scarcely be surprising that a multitude of differing velocities are
obtained
for the light, which Fizeau could only average.






In the upper diagram, the speed of light is constant and the spacing
between the lines occurs at transmission, whereas in the lower diagram
the speed of light is added to the speed of the source, the spacing
between the lines occurs only at the position of the observer. Either
way, the observer sees the same effect, but must invoke general
relativity's time dilation for the upper diagram. See
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...or-lecture.pdf
Whereas it is intuitive to believe what we see, it is also intuitive (and
axiomatic) to add velocities. When we look out into space, these two
intuitions conflict with each other, for both cannot be correct. If we
add velocities, the lower diagram is correct and the interval between the
pulses is regular at transmission, but is seen to be irregular, but if we
believe what we see then the pulses are transmitted irregularly.

You'll find the diagrams at the bottom of the page.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ekerinTime.htm
I'm challenging a Nobel laureate here, not the stooopid idiot Schwartz.

Androcles.

What is it that you think is moving ballistically? The light.

Do you believe photons to be point particles? No, but that is irrelevant.

My only point is that the curve is duplicated by the program which models
light ballistically, using a long period eccentric orbit similar that of
Pluto's,
and a considerable distance. The some model reproduces flare stars,
recurrent novae, cepheids and so-called "eclipsing" variables, and the
conventional model requires a different and exotic explanation for each
type of phenonena.
Since we are on a "Do you beleive" kick,
Do you believe stars explode, settle down to normal only to explode again,
or that they puff up and down like blowfish, or that they emit flares 10,000
brighter than the star itself, or that they orbit companions so closely that
tidal forces would rip them apart in a very short time and yet continue as
though nothing had happened?

Androcles

Richard Perry

"eleaticus" wrote in message . ..
"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

Hey stooopid - tell us the GPS system does not work.

To quote myself:

The facts about True Believer SR-cultists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are many more rotten fruit from the SR-tree to be buried before you
know the nature of their whole orchard. Look for other posts in this
series.

Focus well on negative 'responses'. Are they vicious ranting? Are the
replies actually responsive? Do they rant about gravity, or how Relativity
is proved correct a million times each day, or some other 'we are proved
right' rave that doesn't deal in details about the debunking done here? It
is typically General Relativity or items about the energy and mass of moving
objects that are being waved at you, and such items are completely
irrelevant to coordinate transformations and invariance..

Just ask them for a list of all the observations that have been made of the
shortening (contraction) of moving objects that Special Relativity says
always occurs.

Particle decay. Now **** off.


Rarely, there is actually a response that has some relevance to the material
posted, and those are proofs of their Brain Death.

eleaticus

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...


Congratulations!

You have proved yourself capable of being at least a jerk, if not an ass,
and of not having sufficient honesty to actually respond to the details of
logic/etc.

So, can you now prove yourself capable of relenting in your desire to prove
irrelevant to any actual discussion, and do something helpful?

Maxwell and invariance are an important combination of topics and as many
expressions as I know of for E, H, B, etc, I do not know just what exemplars
of them would be best for demonstrating particulars of their transformation
by Newton-theoretic coordinate tranformations.

The 'problem' is different than in the case of the Lorentz transforms of
Maxwell because in the Newton case it actually is the coordinates x,y,z that
are transformed, rather than - essentially - the inverse of the coordinates.

So, please provide a set of expressions - appropriate for full exposition of
Maxwell's - for Ex, Ey. Ez, etc, complete with explicit coordinate
expressions.

Obviously (ha!) the result would be that finally I come headsup (as we poker
players say) with my tremendous error in thinking that transforming Maxwell
Newton-wise without the three strawmen corruptions will prove invariant.

Thanks!

eleaticus

Paul

eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

eleaticus, Oren Webster, is a despised and stooopid troll,
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Crimes.html
"Several crimes against logic and science" Ha ha ha!

Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus,

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of
multivariable calculus. He has no concept of the Chain Rule in
multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean Transformation goo and
dribble:

t' = t,
x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.

His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
variable springs from a massive emprical stupidity re space and time
are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four coordinates
instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional manifold, and that
the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates.
This is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
(electric and magnetic fields for example).

The transformation law for the differential operators under the
Galilean transformation is given by:

d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
d/dx' = d/dx,
d/dy' = d/dy,
d/dz' = d/dz.

This shows the necessity of introducing a new variable t', since
partial differentiation with respect to t' (constant x', y', z') is a
different operation to partial differentiation with respect to t
(constant x, y, z). The above transformation law is determined by the
Chain Rule:

d/dt' = dt/dt' d/dt + dx/dt' d/dx + dy/dt' d/dy + dz/dt' d/dz,
d/dx' = dt/dx' d/dt + dx/dx' d/dx + dy/dx' d/dy + dz/dx' d/dz,
d/dy' = dt/dy' d/dt + dx/dy' d/dx + dy/dy' d/dy + dz/dy' d/dz,
d/dz' = dt/dz' d/dt + dx/dz' d/dx + dy/dz' d/dy + dz/dz' d/dz.

The presence of the term involving d/dx in the expression for d/dt' is
indicative of the fact that x depends on t' (x', y', z', being held
constant), as can be seen from the fact that the coefficient of d/dx
in the expression for d/dt' is dx/dt'. Because of the now
demonstrated fact that Eleaticus has no formal education in
multivariable calculus, he has managed, somehow, to get it into his
head that the presence of the term involving d/dx in the expression
for d/dt' is indicative of t' depending on x (t, y, z, being held
constant). Because of his stupidty Eleaticus cannot get the correct
transformation law for the differential operators under the Galilean
Transformation, and he cannot determine the invariance or otherwise of
Maxwell's Equations under the Galilean Transformation. The first
advice to Eleaticus is to learn multivariable calculus.

Eleaticus should not pretend that he can understand how to determine
invariance or otherwise of Maxwell's Equations under the Galilean
Transformation, or under the Lorentz Transformation, until he
understands the multivariable calculus which underlies such
considerations. Eleaticus is a loud idiot.

The homogeneous Maxwell equations are invariant under the Galilean
Transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y - v B_z,
E_z' = E_z + v B_y,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y,
B_z' = B_z.

The derivation of these transformation laws was determined using the
transformation laws for the differential operators given above. These
transformation laws have the additional advantage that they determine
the correct transformation for the force law, thus providing further
evidence in favour of the transformation law for the differential
operators, as above.

The inhomogeneous Maxwell equations are also invariant under the
Galilean transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = E_y,
E_z' = E_z,
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = B_y + v/c^2 E_z,
B_z' = B_z - v/c^2 E_y,
\rho' = \rho,
J_x' = J_x - v \rho,
J_y' = J_y,
J_z' = J_z.

Note the the transformation laws for the charge density and current
density are as they should be under the Galilean transformation.

Homogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean Transformation,
and inhomogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean
Transformation, but Maxwell's Equations as a whole are NOT invariant
under the Galilean Transformation, since the transformation laws
required for the EM field for the two cases are inconsistent with each
other. The transformation law for the EM field which makes the
homogeneous equations invariant will not also make the inhomogeneous
equations invariant. The transformation law for the EM field which
makes the inhomogeneous equations invariant will not also make the
homogeneous equations invariant.

On the other hand, all of Maxwell's equations are invariant under the
Lorentz Transformation, with transformation laws:

E_x' = E_x,
E_y' = \gamma (E_y - v B_z),
E_z' = \gamma (E_z + v B_y),
B_x' = B_x,
B_y' = \gamma (B_y + v/c^2 E_z),
B_z' = \gamma (B_z - v/c^2 E_y),
\rho' = \gamma (\rho - v/c^2 J_x),
J_x' = \gamma (J_x - v \rho),
J_y' = J_y,
J_z' = J_z,

where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).


Idiot Oren Webster sees himself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees him this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

Hey, stooopid troll Eleaticus - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24
GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three
rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections
being applied.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 121101
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
eleaticus wrote:
[snip crap]

eleaticus, Oren Webster, is a despised and stooopid troll,
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...es/Crimes.html
"Several crimes against logic and science" Ha ha ha!

Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus,

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

Just so Uncle Al admits that SR reduces to the absurd.

I.E, whatever the facts of science are, they cannot really be SR.

Eleaticus explicitly demonstrates that he is completely ignorant of
multivariable calculus. He has no concept of the Chain Rule in
multivariable calculus. Consider his Galilean Transformation goo and
dribble:

t' = t,

For the umpteenth time he lies, then admits the lie below:

x' = x - vt,
y' = y,
z' = z.

His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
variable springs

See?

Congratulations!

You have proved yourself capable of being at least a jerk, if not an ass,
and of not having sufficient honesty to actually respond to the details of
logic/etc.

So, can you now prove yourself capable of relenting in your desire to prove
irrelevant to any actual discussion, and do something helpful?

Maxwell and invariance are an important combination of topics and as many
expressions as I know of for E, H, B, etc, I do not know just what exemplars
of them would be best for demonstrating particulars of their transformation
by Newton-theoretic coordinate tranformations.

The 'problem' is different than in the case of the Lorentz transforms of
Maxwell because in the Newton case it actually is the coordinates x,y,z that
are transformed, rather than - essentially - the inverse of the coordinates.

So, please provide a set of expressions - appropriate for full exposition of
Maxwell's - for Ex, Ey. Ez, etc, complete with explicit coordinate
expressions.

Obviously (ha!) the result would be that finally I come headsup (as we poker
players say) with my tremendous error in thinking that transforming Maxwell
Newton-wise without the three strawmen corruptions will prove invariant.

Thanks!

eleaticus