Dear Colleagues,

We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
space-time reduction in SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html

Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
follow from them.

We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
any physical phenomena.

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: ,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html

On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
wrote:

Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
is completely invalid.
When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
and you may enjoy them.

w.


Dear Colleagues,

We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
space-time reduction in SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html

Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
follow from them.

We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
any physical phenomena.

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: ,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message ups.com...
Dear Colleagues,

Indeed, you have many colleagues impostors on these newsgroups.


We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
space-time reduction in SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html

Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

of which the carefully concealed error was already exposed:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...f38ab41542f91d


This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
follow from them.

We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
any physical phenomena.

Unless you are incredibly stupid and/or deliberately deceiving
your 'readers', there is no reason to post a supplement to a
paper that was already exposed and classified as junk.
Why don't you post a supplement to your non-zero curl gradient
scam?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...b73c5fd98f8a36

I already told you - your deliberate errors are too transparent.

Dirk Vdm

"Helmut Wabnig" EmailAddress@ wrote in message
...
On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
wrote:

Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
is completely invalid.
When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
and you may enjoy them.

w.

Are you a fascist?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:11:43 +0100, "Harry"
wrote:


"Helmut Wabnig" EmailAddress@ wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
wrote:

Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
is completely invalid.
When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
and you may enjoy them.

w.

Are you a fascist?

It is intersting to note that all relativity opponents
are indeed fascists. All those myriads of "Einstein error"
pamphlet authors are driven by anti-semitism.
For them, relativity is "Jewish physics" and therefore must
be wrong, and they sacrifice every logic principle
in their useless pervert efforts to falsify RT.
w.

"Helmut Wabnig" EmailAddress@ wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:11:43 +0100, "Harry"
wrote:


"Helmut Wabnig" EmailAddress@ wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
wrote:

Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
is completely invalid.
When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
and you may enjoy them.

w.

Are you a fascist?

It is intersting to note that all relativity opponents
are indeed fascists. All those myriads of "Einstein error"
pamphlet authors are driven by anti-semitism.
For them, relativity is "Jewish physics" and therefore must
be wrong, and they sacrifice every logic principle
in their useless pervert efforts to falsify RT.
w.

You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one? I have seen no
evidence for it, quite to the contrary: from a quick look at his for me much
too elaborate writings I see that according to him, both Poincare and
Minkowski made errors. Moreover, he's even not really an opponent of the
physics theory called SRT, eventhough he claims to be: instead it appears
that he actually seems to "enjoy" the LT, as you put it. But he is opposed
to popular "relativistic" philosophy, which indeed all too often is confused
with physics. He can't be blamed for starting that confusion but as long as
he propagates it, he'll never get out of the morass of misdirected arguments
that are supported by often erroneous calculations.

Harald

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
ups.com...
Dear Colleagues,

We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
space-time reduction in SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html

Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
follow from them.

Dear Sergey,

I enjoyed the simulations on your html pages, I think they are insightful.
You started with a "rest frame" in which light speed has been made to appear
isotropic by convention. And in that configuration you clearly show that as
determined in that rest frame, the speed of the light pulse relatively to
the moving frame is c-v on the one side and c+v on the other side. In fact,
this is not only acknowledged in Einstein's 1905 paper, it's even used in
the derivations; thus your animations may be helpful when reading his paper.
In modern jargon that relative speed is also called "closing speed".

IOW, what do you think is "wrong" about the way he formalated the
postulates? According to Einstein, he formulated facts of experience; I see
nothing incorrect with them. It's essential to distinguish between how some
textbooks interpret those postulates and what they really state, with their
meaning as outlined in the 1905 paper.

Nevertheless, if I understood you well, I agree with your conclusion that in
general, light speed can not be modelled as being truly (thus observer
independent) isotropic in any such freely chosen "rest" frame. Such follows
from the obvious fact that the "rest" frame isn't "special" and even doesn't
have to be physical: there is an infinite amount of such "rest" frames that
one may choose and in any such chosen frame, light speed appears to be
anisotropic relative to all others.

Apart of that, about the visual distortion of jet appearence I don't know
enough to comment.

Best regards,
Harald

We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
any physical phenomena.

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: ,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:33:48 +0100, "Harry"
wrote:


You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one?
No, allow me a few words although this is OT,
only a few words, that buzzword appears all to often in UselessNet!

There is no commonly acknowledged definition of "fascist".
When we look at certain countries we will find "totaliarism"
fits rather than "fascist". But there is a subtle difference.
A fascist regime takes control of all public life and private
life as well. This is not always the case with totaliarist regimes,
eg. military dictators. The Communists have of course different
definitions, although their regimes have all properties of fascism.

My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
************************************************** ****
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
************************************************** ****
(Hope that sounds, I am not native English)
Of course that applies vice versa,
must the text be modified to emphasize that?

That definition comes from my many years of studying
the German / Austrian Nationalsozialismus with all
it's spying and betraying actions among the population:
************************************************** *****************
Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
************************************************** *****************
w.
--
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".

On Fri, Helmut Wabnig EmailAddress@ wrote:

My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
************************************************* *****
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
************************************************* *****
(Hope that sounds, I am not native English)
Of course that applies vice versa,
must the text be modified to emphasize that?

That sounds good the way it is.

But I would suggest,

"Fascism is, when I must live the way the ruling leaders think"

That definition comes from my many years of studying
the German / Austrian Nationalsozialismus with all
it's spying and betraying actions among the population:
************************************************* ******************
Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
************************************************* ******************
w.

The last sentence probably goes a long way in
explaining why the people of Germany have suffered
so much in conflict in the last century, a country that
is completely surrounded by other countries, and it
is difficult to get along with all of them.

It may help explain why the two dictators had
enough support to impose rules, which resulted in
Einstein and many others leaving the country.

But this is off topic in the newsgroup I am
reading it in.

I was wrong about one thing though, I had
always thought that once a country went communist,
there would no way to recover any freedom at all
without a lot of bloodshed.
At least it appears I was wrong, history will
tell.

But now, on Usenet, there seems to be too
much freedom, people say things they would never
say in person. :-)

Joe Fischer

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
************************************************** ****
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
************************************************** ****

Excellent! I would not change a word of it!

************************************************** *****************
Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
************************************************** *****************

Another winner!

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA