http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Mr. Smoot,

I think you would appreciate the final questions posed by Newton in his
Optick's, in particular questions number 1, and a couple of questions
up in the thrities. Einstein's entire hypothesis can be traced
directly to questions left unanswered in Opticks due to technological
limits in his own era.

The M-M interferometer experiment was, by the way, successful. The
interferometer's INABILITY to either debunk or support the existence of
"aether" was not the primary purpose of the apparatus or the experiment
itself.

Here's an easy "thought experiment": How many sides does a three
dimensional object possess? a) 1 side; b) 2 sides; or 3) 3 sides.
Think about it.

Grouchy wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Mr. Smoot,

I think you would appreciate the final questions posed by Newton in his
Optick's, in particular questions number 1, and a couple of questions
up in the thrities. Einstein's entire hypothesis can be traced
directly to questions left unanswered in Opticks due to technological
limits in his own era.

The M-M interferometer experiment was, by the way, successful. The
interferometer's INABILITY to either debunk or support the existence of
"aether" was not the primary purpose of the apparatus or the experiment
itself.

Here's an easy "thought experiment": How many sides does a three
dimensional object possess? a) 1 side; b) 2 sides; or 3) 3 sides.
Think about it.

"pancho" can only count to two. He fell on his had at that age.
Excellent post, otherwise.

Grouchy wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Mr. Smoot,

I think you would appreciate the final questions posed by Newton in his
Optick's, in particular questions number 1, and a couple of questions
up in the thrities. Einstein's entire hypothesis can be traced
directly to questions left unanswered in Opticks due to technological
limits in his own era.

The M-M interferometer experiment was, by the way, successful. The
interferometer's INABILITY to either debunk or support the existence of
"aether" was not the primary purpose of the apparatus or the experiment
itself.

Here's an easy "thought experiment": How many sides does a three
dimensional object possess? a) 1 side; b) 2 sides; or 3) 3 sides.
Think about it.

How many sides does a sphere have?
How many sides does a cube have?

Grouchy wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Mr. Smoot,

Pentcho is an anti-relativity crank. He is most definitely not
George Smoot, an eminent scientist and the lead researcher on
the pioneering COBE experiment which mapped irregularities in the
cosmic background, the fingerprints of the Big Bang.
http://aether.lbl.gov/

Smoot also co-wrote one of my favorite popular physics books, "Wrinkles
in Time".

Pentcho likes to quote relativity sources which he somehow
interprets as being anti-relativist. I can't imagine what point
he was trying to make by quoting Smoot's article.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Grouchy wrote:
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
| http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
| Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially
when
| there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
| a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
| recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
| on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation
and
| codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
| light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly
aware
| of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
| Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
| essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
| light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
| observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
| frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
| derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
| Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
| simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot
|
| Mr. Smoot,
|
| Pentcho is an anti-relativity crank.

Blind Poe is a pro-relativity ****wit who cannot find c+v in Einstein's
paper.

Androcles

1 De: - ver perfil
Fecha: Mart 3 oct 2006 20:14
Correo electrónico:
Grupos: alt.morons
Sin calificarValoración:
mostrar opciones
Responder | Responder al autor | Reenviar | Imprimir | Mensaje
individual | Mostrar mensaje original | Eliminar | Notificar abuso |
Buscar mensajes de este autor


Please do NOT become crazy...
+++++++++
Thank you for taking the time to write us. If you have questions or
feedback about Google Groups, please visit our Help Center, which will
provide you with quicker answers to your questions. The Google Groups
Help
Center is located at http://groups.google.com/support. After searching
and
browsing the Help Center, if you'd still like to contact us, please
click
on the contact link at the bottom of the Help Center, select the topic
that best describes your question, and send us a message.

If you'd like to remove your own posts, we're pleased to announce that
we
now offer a quick and easy way to remove your Google Groups and Google
Groups Beta posts. To remove your posts, please go to
http://groups.google.com/groups/msgs_remove


Follow the directions to submit the following information. If you've
already collected this information for a previous request, just cut and

paste it into the fields.


1. The email address originally used to post the messages.
2. The complete Google Groups Beta URL (or message ID) for each
individual
message you'd like to have suppressed.
3. A statement that says "I swear under penalty of civil or criminal
laws
that I am the person who posted each of the foregoing messages or am
authorized to request removal by the person who posted those messages."



4. Your current email address.
5. Your full contact information, including your legal name.
6. Your reason for requesting removal.


Please note that you can only remove posts from one email address at a
time. This means if you made six posts from and
seven
from that you want to remove, you'll need to
submit two requests, one for each email address.


We will review your request and process the removal on your behalf if
we
find the information to be accurate. If you have any problems with the
new
tool or if you have additional questions about removals, please let us
know by submitting your question through the Help Center contact form
at
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/request.py


Regards,
The Google Team


Responder »

El asunto ha cambiado: My answer
2 De: - ver perfil
Fecha: Mart 3 oct 2006 20:16
Correo electrónico:
Grupos: alt.morons
Sin calificarValoración:
mostrar opciones
Responder | Responder al autor | Reenviar | Imprimir | Mensaje
individual | Mostrar mensaje original | Eliminar | Notificar abuso |
Buscar mensajes de este autor


You are wrong. I am NOT going to remove MY own messages. I want to
prosecute
the user in the US Court.
++++++++++


- Ocultar texto de la cita -
- Mostrar texto de la cita -

wrote:
Please do NOT become crazy...
+++++++++
Thank you for taking the time to write us. If you have questions or
feedback about Google Groups, please visit our Help Center, which will
provide you with quicker answers to your questions. The Google Groups
Help
Center is located at http://groups.google.com/support. After searching
and
browsing the Help Center, if you'd still like to contact us, please
click
on the contact link at the bottom of the Help Center, select the topic
that best describes your question, and send us a message.

If you'd like to remove your own posts, we're pleased to announce that
we
now offer a quick and easy way to remove your Google Groups and Google
Groups Beta posts. To remove your posts, please go to
http://groups.google.com/groups/msgs_remove


Follow the directions to submit the following information. If you've
already collected this information for a previous request, just cut and
paste it into the fields.


1. The email address originally used to post the messages.
2. The complete Google Groups Beta URL (or message ID) for each
individual
message you'd like to have suppressed.
3. A statement that says "I swear under penalty of civil or criminal
laws
that I am the person who posted each of the foregoing messages or am
authorized to request removal by the person who posted those messages."


4. Your current email address.
5. Your full contact information, including your legal name.
6. Your reason for requesting removal.


Please note that you can only remove posts from one email address at a
time. This means if you made six posts from and
seven
from that you want to remove, you'll need to
submit two requests, one for each email address.


We will review your request and process the removal on your behalf if
we
find the information to be accurate. If you have any problems with the
new
tool or if you have additional questions about removals, please let us
know by submitting your question through the Help Center contact form
at
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/request.py


Regards,
The Google Team



Responder »

El asunto ha cambiado: Answer of google group on the US charges
(Please do NOT become crazy...)
3 De: - ver perfil
Fecha: Mart 3 oct 2006 20:19
Correo electrónico:
Grupos: alt.morons
Sin calificarValoración:
mostrar opciones
Responder | Responder al autor | Reenviar | Imprimir | Mensaje
individual | Mostrar mensaje original | Eliminar | Notificar abuso |
Buscar mensajes de este autor


Please note that the Contract on the Use of google group is valid ONLY
for
the google group Internet communications. It is NOT valid for the
personal e-messages.

Yours Sincerely,
Valeri Dvoeglazov




wrote:
Grouchy wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot

Mr. Smoot,

I think you would appreciate the final questions posed by Newton in his
Optick's, in particular questions number 1, and a couple of questions
up in the thrities. Einstein's entire hypothesis can be traced
directly to questions left unanswered in Opticks due to technological
limits in his own era.

The M-M interferometer experiment was, by the way, successful. The
interferometer's INABILITY to either debunk or support the existence of
"aether" was not the primary purpose of the apparatus or the experiment
itself.

Here's an easy "thought experiment": How many sides does a three
dimensional object possess? a) 1 side; b) 2 sides; or 3) 3 sides.
Think about it.

"pancho" can only count to two. He fell on his had at that age.
Excellent post, otherwise.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html

[...] More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations.

This is an overly romantic way of saying Einstein's plagiarism.

Einstein's SR was an echo of Poincare's idea earlier which in turn
was merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform.

As the Lorentz transform manifests two properties, we have

** Constancy of the speed of light - First postulated by Voigt
without much bases

** Principle of Relativity - Worked so well under Newtonian world
but manifests the Twin's paradox in modern physics

Einstein in his 1905 paper started with the two postulates exactly the
same as the properties of the Lorentz transform above.

Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results.

Wrong. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform had nothing to
do with Maxwell's equations. In fact, it had nothing to do with
anything. It was pure nonsense.

How can anyone dedicated to the study of science lie and deceit like
that?

He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame.

These are the exact properties of the Lorentz transform derived earlier
by Larmor.

From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity,

Hind sights are always 20/20 especially when you know the answer.

including the Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length
contraction,

This is total BS. Only with FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction, the
Lorentz transform can be derived. Time dilation is the other result of
the Lorentz transform.

loss of simultaneity,

This is the direct consequence of the principle of Relativity.

E=mc2,

Another BS. This famous equation cannot be derived from SR.
Einstein's derivation is again nonsense.

and the lot!

Like what other BS. As Einstein had said, "the secret to creativity
is to know how to hide your sources." It created a lot more BS.
Absolutely amazing.

- George F. Smoot

You know you are a crackpot when you think two seemingly different
interpretations based on the same mathematics are distinct hypotheses.
In the study of the both theories of Relativity, the examples are
abundant. Below are two such of examples.

** Lorentz transform - SR versus LET

** Gravitation - Fields in the Aether versus curvature in spacetime

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html

[...] More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations.

This is an overly romantic way of saying Einstein's plagiarism.

Einstein's SR was an echo of Poincare's idea earlier which in turn
was merely an interpretation to the Lorentz transform.

As the Lorentz transform manifests two properties, we have

** Constancy of the speed of light - First postulated by Voigt
without much bases

** Principle of Relativity - Worked so well under Newtonian world
but manifests the Twin's paradox in modern physics

Einstein in his 1905 paper started with the two postulates exactly the
same as the properties of the Lorentz transform above.

Yes, yes. Tell us more about Lorentz transforms.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rentzTale.html


Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results.

Wrong. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transform had nothing to
do with Maxwell's equations. In fact, it had nothing to do with
anything. It was pure nonsense.

On what education do you base this assertion? Notice actual physicists
don't seem to share your opinion, so think carefully before you answer.


How can anyone dedicated to the study of science lie and deceit like
that?

Hmm.

What is more likely, an entire field of professionals being hoodwinked
for over a century or yet another retired engineer simply doesn't know
what the **** he is talking about?


He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame.

These are the exact properties of the Lorentz transform derived earlier
by Larmor.

From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity,

Hind sights are always 20/20 especially when you know the answer.

Then why do you keep getting it wrong?


including the Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length
contraction,

This is total BS. Only with FitzGerald-Lorentz length contraction, the
Lorentz transform can be derived. Time dilation is the other result of
the Lorentz transform.

Have you EVER opened a physics textbook?


loss of simultaneity,

This is the direct consequence of the principle of Relativity.

E=mc2,

Another BS. This famous equation cannot be derived from SR.
Einstein's derivation is again nonsense.

So...where then, pray tell, did E=mc^2 come from?


and the lot!

Like what other BS. As Einstein had said, "the secret to creativity
is to know how to hide your sources." It created a lot more BS.
Absolutely amazing.

- George F. Smoot

You know you are a crackpot when you think two seemingly different
interpretations based on the same mathematics are distinct hypotheses.
In the study of the both theories of Relativity, the examples are
abundant. Below are two such of examples.

** Lorentz transform - SR versus LET

Same mathematics. Different philosophical interpretation. BFD.


** Gravitation - Fields in the Aether versus curvature in spacetime

Hah. There does not exist an aether based analogy to LET for GR.

Golden Boar wrote:
Grouchy wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/my_e...n06_index.html
Aesthetic arguments, while useful as development tools, especially when
there are no observations to guide the effort, made me uneasy-seemed
a throwback to Greek reasoning about the celestial spheres. More
recently, I came to realize that Einstein based special relativity not
on pure thought alone but upon a great deal of physical observation and
codifying theory-in particular, electromagnetism and the theory of
light via James Clerk Maxwell's equations. Einstein was certainly aware
of Lorentz's work, but was coming from the Maxwell side, not the
Michelson-Morley results. He was reducing these ideas down to two
essential postulates added onto the existing physics: (1) The speed of
light is definite and independent of the speed of the source or of the
observer, and (2) the laws of physics are the same in every inertial
frame. From these two postulates and thought experiments, one can
derive all the consequences of special relativity, including the
Lorentz transformations, time dilation, length contraction, loss of
simultaneity, E=mc2, and the lot! - George F. Smoot
Mr. Smoot,

I think you would appreciate the final questions posed by Newton in his
Optick's, in particular questions number 1, and a couple of questions
up in the thrities. Einstein's entire hypothesis can be traced
directly to questions left unanswered in Opticks due to technological
limits in his own era.

The M-M interferometer experiment was, by the way, successful. The
interferometer's INABILITY to either debunk or support the existence of
"aether" was not the primary purpose of the apparatus or the experiment
itself.

Here's an easy "thought experiment": How many sides does a three
dimensional object possess? a) 1 side; b) 2 sides; or 3) 3 sides.
Think about it.

How many sides does a sphere have?
How many sides does a cube have?


Two.
Inside and outside.

Paul