http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, you may go down into the history books as the
infamous, causal agent that has produced a pandemic of
unbearable fatal systemic stress rages in untold numbers
of Albert's disciples, who are affectionately known as
Einstein's Dingleberries, leading to their premature
earthly departure. -- Now, if Einstein is going to be right
after all, they then will come back from youndern, as
vigorous and vicious youngsters of said criminal cult and
they will beat your aged wrinkled ass, ...far worse than
they do now... So, prepare & protect yourself accordingly...
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahaha... ahahanson


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
physics. He was a below average student. At age 16, he could not have
wondered about photons. In college, he chased after the only skirt in
his class. Yes, his biological instinct is just like the rest of us
(well most of us males with masculine characters). Surviving lecture
notes scribbled by Einstein indicated he must have missed a lot of
classes as well as carelessness for physics. His grades did reflect
this.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
the Aether.

3. The concept of space and time forming a single unit called the
manifold to replace the Aether only occurred after 1908. Minkowski was
the first to propose such a ridiculous idea.

4. Einstein did not invent SR to explain the Michelson-Morley
experiment. He had no references to prior works despite incorrectly
deriving the Lorentz transform and (E = m c^2). This is a very strong
case of plagiarism.

5. Referring to the Lorentz transform, relative simultaneity was
Poincare's suggestion. This absurd idea can easily be proven wrong
by looking at the interference pattern of two beams of light. The
coherent and repeatable interference patterns can only suggest absolute
simultaneity. The Lorentz transform manifests relative simultaneity.
It leaves no room for coherent interference patterns.

6. The Twin's paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
frame jumping handwaving. Yeah, while you are at it, do a couple more
jumping jacks. Miraculously, the clock paradox would then be resolved.
This is physics not Hollywood movies. Since there is no math to
resolve this paradox, you can safely say the Lorentz transform is
wrong. Since SR is an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, SR must
be wrong as well.

The rest of the paper starting with "Outgrowing Einstein" is total
BS as well as the rest of the article. However, it is beautifully
printed with pretty figures.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
| the Aether.
|

Aether fails the Newton test.

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.

Action at a distance:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif

Showing Einstein wrong doesn't make aether right. Show me aether.
Burden of proof is upon the claimant.

Androcles

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
physics. He was a below average student.

Koobee Wublee (aka Australopithecus Afarensis) rapes the
Lorentz transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
showing that he doesn't even understand what the variables
mean :-)

Dirk Vdm

"Sorcerer" wrote in message k...

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
| 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment never disproved the existence of
| the Aether.
|

Aether fails the Newton test.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULE I.

Make Sure You Get Your Orgasms In Public:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...ndrorgasm.html

Dirk Vdm

Koobee Wublee wrote:

6. The Twin's paradox is still not yet resolved despite ridiculous
frame jumping handwaving. Yeah, while you are at it, do a couple more
jumping jacks. Miraculously, the clock paradox would then be resolved.
This is physics not Hollywood movies. Since there is no math to
resolve this paradox, you can safely say the Lorentz transform is
wrong. Since SR is an interpretation to the Lorentz transform, SR must
be wrong as well.

There is math to resolve it but O. Heaviside probably left it down
at the telegraph office with his lunch wrappers.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node50.html
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Unfortunately for GR, it is an argument against, not supportive
of a 'space-time continuum' and that counter argument
is born out in experiment.

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Nuclear
Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964). [3] The more
accurate measurement with Snider.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v13/i18/p539_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 'Okun"

Sue...

Sorcerer wrote:
[...]
Action at a distance:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/spin.gif

The 'spin' axes (plural) in that phenomena are parallel to the
video monitor's face (x,y).

You are showing circular motion about the z axis.

We appaude the honest disclosure of you prowess
in modeling magnetism.

Try again. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.innopro.de/maxwell_equations.htm

Sue...

[...]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:


http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth...relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might
be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come
from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed
of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of
gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that
case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

1. Before 25 years old, Einstein was not even interested in science or
physics. He was a below average student.


Koobee Wublee (aka Australopithecus Afarensis) rapes the
Lorentz transformation:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html
showing that he doesn't even understand what the variables
mean :-)

From "not interested in Physics" at 25 to Physics PhD at 26 doesn't
sound like a "below average student", does it? That laughable
LorentzTale makes it pretty clear where the "below average" assessment
belongs, as if it wasn't already crystal clear from that Howdy Doody
name it goes by.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

[...]

Try again.