Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens

wrote in message
oups.com...
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations,

Since they follow from it such is obviously silly.

Bill

as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens

wrote:
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens


The author D. Russo is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
Can't you see that, Marcel?

Paul

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens


The author D. Russo is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
Can't you see that, Marcel?

Paul

Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
of the SR derivation.

Marcel Luttgens

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens


The author D. Russo is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
Can't you see that, Marcel?

Paul

Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
of the SR derivation.

Marcel Luttgens

Don't miss her conclusions:

"10. Conclusions

Main goal of Special Relativity seems to be demonstrating that, from
its starting two postulates only, it is possible to derive the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis instead proves that this
derivation is not possible, and that Einstein obtains it only thanks to
an ambiguous use of symbols, together with redundant algebraic
operations. Therefore, Lorentz transformations turn out to be
conceptually incompatible with SRT principles, and can be
considered valid only in the ambit of the LET (Lorentz ether theory),
in which they describe real alterations of lengths and light velocity
due to the motion through the ether. Moreover, since the SRT
founding postulate of the c constancy contradicts causal logic, as
shown in paragraph 6, the SRT physical model itself turns out to be
inconsistent, too.
...
Our short critical analysis of SRT main experimental proofs shows
that most of them contain tautological processes or/and arbitrary
handling of parameters, like Rossi-Hall and Hafele-Keating ones, and
that those consisting of real and non-reciprocal clock rate alterations
(SRT effects must instead be apparent and reciprocal), or/and
calculated relative to an ideal not rotating Earth -ECI frame (SRT
motion must instead be relative to the observer), which in fact prove
an ether model and not SRT.
Moreover, if objectively judged, all tests on light anisotropy,
Sagnac evidence included, clearly prove an ether model. As to the
proper meaning to attach to all the observed real clock rate
alterations,
our discussion shows that, provided they are not due to clock rate
random deviations, they cannot in principle be considered as real
changes in the flowing of time."

Marcel Luttgens

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens


The author D. Russo is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
Can't you see that, Marcel?

Paul

Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
of the SR derivation.

Marcel Luttgens

Don't miss her conclusions:

"10. Conclusions

Main goal of Special Relativity seems to be demonstrating that, from
its starting two postulates only, it is possible to derive the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis instead proves that this
derivation is not possible, and that Einstein obtains it only thanks to
an ambiguous use of symbols, together with redundant algebraic
operations. Therefore, Lorentz transformations turn out to be
conceptually incompatible with SRT principles, and can be
considered valid only in the ambit of the LET (Lorentz ether theory),
in which they describe real alterations of lengths and light velocity
due to the motion through the ether. Moreover, since the SRT
founding postulate of the c constancy contradicts causal logic, as
shown in paragraph 6, the SRT physical model itself turns out to be
inconsistent, too.
...
Our short critical analysis of SRT main experimental proofs shows
that most of them contain tautological processes or/and arbitrary
handling of parameters, like Rossi-Hall and Hafele-Keating ones, and
that those consisting of real and non-reciprocal clock rate alterations
(SRT effects must instead be apparent and reciprocal), or/and
calculated relative to an ideal not rotating Earth -ECI frame (SRT
motion must instead be relative to the observer), which in fact prove
an ether model and not SRT.
Moreover, if objectively judged, all tests on light anisotropy,
Sagnac evidence included, clearly prove an ether model. As to the
proper meaning to attach to all the observed real clock rate
alterations,
our discussion shows that, provided they are not due to clock rate
random deviations, they cannot in principle be considered as real
changes in the flowing of time."

Marcel Luttgens

- SRT is a principle theory: it uses *no* model (on purpose).
- Modern derivations of SRT that use little more than the PoR are regularly
referred to in this NG.

Harald

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| Worth reading:
|
| Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
| http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
|
| Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
| Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo
|
| A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
| Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
| Daniele Russo E-mail:
|
| "On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
| physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
| discussed, together with their respective logical and
| mathematical processes, both leading to the same
| transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
| coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
| transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
| Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
| describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
| motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
| The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| The author D. Russo is very confused.
| His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
| Can't you see that, Marcel?
|
| Paul

The author A. Einstein is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind, such as not knowing what a
half is,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/eq22.A.GIF
or what a constant velocity is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.GIF
Can't you see that, Tusselad?
No, of course you can't, you keep your head up your arse at all times.
Androcles

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| wrote in message
| ups.com...
|
| wrote:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| wrote:
| Worth reading:
|
| Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
| http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
|
| Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
| Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo
|
| A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
| Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
| Daniele Russo E-mail:
|
| "On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
| physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
| discussed, together with their respective logical and
| mathematical processes, both leading to the same
| transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
| coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
| transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
| Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
| describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
| motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
| The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| The author D. Russo is very confused.
| His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
| Can't you see that, Marcel?
|
| Paul
|
| Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
| of the SR derivation.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
| Don't miss her conclusions:
|
| "10. Conclusions
|
| Main goal of Special Relativity seems to be demonstrating that, from
| its starting two postulates only, it is possible to derive the same
| transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis instead proves that this
| derivation is not possible, and that Einstein obtains it only thanks to
| an ambiguous use of symbols, together with redundant algebraic
| operations. Therefore, Lorentz transformations turn out to be
| conceptually incompatible with SRT principles, and can be
| considered valid only in the ambit of the LET (Lorentz ether theory),
| in which they describe real alterations of lengths and light velocity
| due to the motion through the ether. Moreover, since the SRT
| founding postulate of the c constancy contradicts causal logic, as
| shown in paragraph 6, the SRT physical model itself turns out to be
| inconsistent, too.
| ...
| Our short critical analysis of SRT main experimental proofs shows
| that most of them contain tautological processes or/and arbitrary
| handling of parameters, like Rossi-Hall and Hafele-Keating ones, and
| that those consisting of real and non-reciprocal clock rate alterations
| (SRT effects must instead be apparent and reciprocal), or/and
| calculated relative to an ideal not rotating Earth -ECI frame (SRT
| motion must instead be relative to the observer), which in fact prove
| an ether model and not SRT.
| Moreover, if objectively judged, all tests on light anisotropy,
| Sagnac evidence included, clearly prove an ether model. As to the
| proper meaning to attach to all the observed real clock rate
| alterations,
| our discussion shows that, provided they are not due to clock rate
| random deviations, they cannot in principle be considered as real
| changes in the flowing of time."
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
| - SRT is a principle theory: it uses *no* model (on purpose).
| - Modern derivations of SRT that use little more than the PoR are
regularly
| referred to in this NG.
|
| Harald
You are another phuckwit with your head up your arse at all times.
You don't know what a half is or what a constant velocity is.
Androcles.

wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Worth reading:

Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm

Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo

A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
Daniele Russo E-mail:

"On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
discussed, together with their respective logical and
mathematical processes, both leading to the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."

Marcel Luttgens

The author D. Russo is very confused.
His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
Can't you see that, Marcel?

Paul

Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
of the SR derivation.

Marcel Luttgens


She demonstrates a deep confusion from the very beginning.
She doesn't even know what a co-ordinate transform is!
Or worse. She doesn't seem to know what co-ordinates are!

Look at this:
Quote from:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V13N3RUS.pdf

From the fact that SRT alterations are apparent and subjective, it
follows that, differently from the Lorentz’s model context, in order to
unambiguously describe two systems moving relative to one another,
in SRT, four kinds of symbols are in principle necessary, corresponding
to the four possible points of view predicted by the SRT model:
k seen by k, K seen by K, K seen by k and k seen by K.


The "symbols" in question are the co-ordinates of an event.
An event has but one set of co-ordinates in each frame of reference.
There are two frames of reference : k and K.
So how can you have _four_ sets of co-ordinates?
If an event has the co-ordinates (x,y,z,t) in K,
it doesn't matter if you see it from k or K.
The idea that the coordinates of an event in a frame of reference
depend on from where you "see it" reveals a deep confusion.

And she goes on:

Contradicting the requirement exposed at the end of the previous
paragraph, both in the SRT first exposition and subsequent ones, in
order to describe two systems moving “relative” to one another,
Einstein uses two kinds of symbols only. Particularly, in the 1905
article, xi, mu, zeta, tau represent the "proper" coordinates of a point
in the system assumed "at motion" k, and x, y, z, t represent the "improper"
(apparent) coordinates of the same point, if viewed from the assumed
"at rest" system K.


What is "apparent" or "improper" by the coordinates in K as opposed
to the coordinates in k?
This is confused nonsense.

So is the rest of the paper.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| wrote:
| Worth reading:
|
| Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
| http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
|
| Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
| Click on: A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity, by D. Russo
|
| A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity in Light of
| Lorentz's and Michelson's Ideas
| Daniele Russo E-mail:
|
| "On the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the
| physical models of Einstein's and Lorentz's theories are
| discussed, together with their respective logical and
| mathematical processes, both leading to the same
| transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis evidences logical
| coherence problems between Einstein's model and the Lorentz
| transformations, as well as in the "light postulate" itself.
| Replacement of the SRT transformations are thus proposed,
| describing apparent space-time alterations due to the relative
| motion of a wave source and an observer in a light medium.
| The main experimental proofs of SRT are also discussed."
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
| The author D. Russo is very confused.
| His glaring errors are of the most basic kind.
| Can't you see that, Marcel?
|
| Paul
|
| Paul, she raises interesting questions about the logical validity
| of the SR derivation.
|
| Marcel Luttgens
|
|
| She demonstrates a deep confusion from the very beginning.
| She doesn't even know what a co-ordinate transform is!
| Or worse. She doesn't seem to know what co-ordinates are!

You don't know the difference between a B8 sphere and a K2 torus.
Androcles