Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point. A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.

Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR. SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the roomtime
concept of GR.

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say that
today.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong. The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

Josef Matz

On Aug 31, 3:42 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

Not true. The Center of Earth frame is also a preferred frame
locally. These are simply inertial frames of reference, there is
nothing in Relativity theory that says no inertial frames of reference
exist or that these frames cannot be detected. The frame of CMBR
isotropy is just such a frame.

A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.

What is absolute about this velocity? You could also calculate our
motion with respect to the galactic center, with respect to nearby
stars, etc...



Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR. SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

Isotropic radiation looks anisotropic when you are moving towards it.
That is handled well by special relativity.



SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the roomtime
concept of GR.

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say that
today.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong. The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

I think you'll find that no signal or energy is transferred
superluminally in the experiment you are referring to. Some people
suggest a signal can be passed superluminally using quantum
entanglement a la EPR but I'll believe it when I see it.


And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.


I see a large amount of discussion of the experimental limits of
relativity theory, and not just in the newsgroups but also in
respected journals. You're right there are some elements of quantum
mechanics that seem to not fit in well with relativity but I think
there is some hope, all is not lost

"Josef Matz" wrote in message
...
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally.

If its EM radiation it will be isotropic (locally) in every frame .. that's
what relativity says

Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point. A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..

What fixed stars?

Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.

No such thing, as no such just thing as absolute rest

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.

So there goes your idea that its only isotropic in a preferred frame

From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.

It means no such thing

Another point that comes out as an inlogic

inlogic?

in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation.

unisotropic ?

If you mean anisotropic, and you're talking about EM radition, then no

This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy
is
physical fact.

Nonsense

A near c body emitts only forward radiation.

It emits radiation in all directions at the same speed

Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.

And form where do you jump to the wild conclusion?

Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR. SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

It is perfectly consistent.

SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime

roomtime?

concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the roomtime
concept of GR.

Word salad .. no meaning

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal

What appears superluinal .. it can be explained by GR

and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the near,
a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost instantly
passed by the signals and photons.

This sounds like that recent dubious experiment by some nutter whose name
escapes me

Instant effects are denied by relativity.

Yes .. at least if they traverse the space between to locations

Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !

The universe has everywhere at the same time regardless

GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say
that
today.

No .. he wouldn't .. he was a scientist, not a crackpot.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.

Use SR was a speicla case, GR was general.

Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.

Noone denies that SR is a theory for a special case, and GR is for more
general cases and includes SR

SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Neither is wrong, or at least has never bene shown to be

The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

If they were really doing so .. superluminal is explainable under GR

And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.

Sp?

But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the experimental
results.

Eh?

This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Sounds like more wrod salad again

Relativity theory is wrong.

No .. you're wrong.

The present theory must be overworked.

Do you mean reworked, or that it is working too hard and needs a rest?

Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Probably because you don't make much sense

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

No .. just your post.

"funk420" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...
On Aug 31, 3:42 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

Not true. The Center of Earth frame is also a preferred frame
locally. These are simply inertial frames of reference, there is
nothing in Relativity theory that says no inertial frames of reference
exist or that these frames cannot be detected. The frame of CMBR
isotropy is just such a frame.


How that ? It rotates around the sund ! How can something uncelerated be
preferred ?
Maybe you prefer it for some reason but thats not whats meant here !

A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.

What is absolute about this velocity? You could also calculate our
motion with respect to the galactic center, with respect to nearby
stars, etc...


That is right. But nearby stars are rotating in the galactic arm and
spiraling around the galactic center.
Even the galactic center is in bound with the local group and influenced by
other galaxies. So all this are no strict
inertial systems, only approximately for some effects.

But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system. Maybe the
only one !



Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws
for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of
special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR.
SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

Isotropic radiation looks anisotropic when you are moving towards it.
That is handled well by special relativity.


I know that. The next answer to this post for example denies that in his
reply.
He says EM radiation is isotropic in all frames in contrary to what we two
know from SR books.
It does not only look so as you say. Its a different reality. That is what i
think.
And without an absolute frame you get Ghost Physics. Thats my point.



SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is
based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the
roomtime
concept of GR.

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery
transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the
near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost
instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say
that
today.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.
The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

I think you'll find that no signal or energy is transferred
superluminally in the experiment you are referring to. Some people
suggest a signal can be passed superluminally using quantum
entanglement a la EPR but I'll believe it when I see it.


I have the complete theory for the Nimtz experiment. Explained as normal
reflection and refraction
with makroscopic index theory based on makroskopic electrodynamics. Simple
theory.
Therefore i say Nimtz is classical optics nothing else and he measures and
interpretes right.


And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the
experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.


I see a large amount of discussion of the experimental limits of
relativity theory, and not just in the newsgroups but also in
respected journals. You're right there are some elements of quantum
mechanics that seem to not fit in well with relativity but I think
there is some hope, all is not lost



I think GR is fully wrong and SR mistaken in many points.

"Jeckyl" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
"Josef Matz" wrote in message
...
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally.

If its EM radiation it will be isotropic (locally) in every frame ..
that's
what relativity says


All books on relativity are full of the radiation anisotropy. Where do you
have your knowledge froim ?

Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point. A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..

What fixed stars?

Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.

No such thing, as no such just thing as absolute rest


Of course a strict relativist believes that or must believe that.

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.

So there goes your idea that its only isotropic in a preferred frame


Yes

From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.

It means no such thing

Another point that comes out as an inlogic

inlogic?

ok my English not perfect. I am german


in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation.

unisotropic ?

If you mean anisotropic, and you're talking about EM radition, then no

This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy
is
physical fact.

Nonsense

A near c body emitts only forward radiation.

It emits radiation in all directions at the same speed

Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.

And form where do you jump to the wild conclusion?

Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR.
SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

It is perfectly consistent.

SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime

roomtime?

concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is
based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the
roomtime
concept of GR.

Word salad .. no meaning

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal

What appears superluinal .. it can be explained by GR

and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the
near,
a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost
instantly
passed by the signals and photons.

This sounds like that recent dubious experiment by some nutter whose name
escapes me


Hes right. Prof. Nimtz University Cologne ! The guy that prooves GR wrong !

Instant effects are denied by relativity.

Yes .. at least if they traverse the space between to locations

Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !

The universe has everywhere at the same time regardless

GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say
that
today.

No .. he wouldn't .. he was a scientist, not a crackpot.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.

Use SR was a speicla case, GR was general.

Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.

Noone denies that SR is a theory for a special case, and GR is for more
general cases and includes SR

SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Neither is wrong, or at least has never bene shown to be

The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

If they were really doing so .. superluminal is explainable under GR

And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.

Sp?

But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the
experimental
results.

Eh?

This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Sounds like more wrod salad again

Relativity theory is wrong.

No .. you're wrong.

The present theory must be overworked.

Do you mean reworked, or that it is working too hard and needs a rest?

Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Probably because you don't make much sense

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

No .. just your post.



Now you should at least not do so as if you are knowing the full truth. I
would not call an colleage
a nutter. Nimtz is Prof. in physics. What are you ?

"Josef Matz" wrote in news:46d7e3b6$0$4532$9b4e6d93
@newsspool3.arcor-online.net:

The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.


But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system. Maybe the
only one !

It can't be very ideal if we appear to be "stationary" with respect to it
while we are moving at over 1000 km/s wrt the our galactic center and have
higher velocities wrt other galaxies.

What are the chances that THEY see their being 'stationary' wrt the
background radiation, also?





--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Aug 31, 5:47 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
"funk420" schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1188547487.443060.105030@r23g2000p rd.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 31, 3:42 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

Not true. The Center of Earth frame is also a preferred frame
locally. These are simply inertial frames of reference, there is
nothing in Relativity theory that says no inertial frames of reference
exist or that these frames cannot be detected. The frame of CMBR
isotropy is just such a frame.

How that ? It rotates around the sund ! How can something uncelerated be
preferred ?
Maybe you prefer it for some reason but thats not whats meant here !



Well then what is meant here? Why do you prefer the reference frame
in which the CMBR dipole moment is zero? You are free to use any
coordinate system you choose.

We can also observe, detect, measure, and even in some circumstances
prefer, the rest frame of the closest star (Sol). I don't think
there's much observed acceleration of that either.




A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics..
Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the
question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than
1000
km /s.

What is absolute about this velocity? You could also calculate our
motion with respect to the galactic center, with respect to nearby
stars, etc...

That is right. But nearby stars are rotating in the galactic arm and
spiraling around the galactic center.
Even the galactic center is in bound with the local group and influenced by
other galaxies. So all this are no strict
inertial systems, only approximately for some effects.

But the isotropic background is a ideal physical inertial system. Maybe the
only one !



I think you have a good point here, in that because the CMBR comes
from so far away, it represents a larger system and is less dynamic.
However, one might equally define reference frame at rest with respect
to all observed galaxies of magnitude 30.

That might be even more stable over time and position but still not
perfectly ideal of course.














Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws
for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of
special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The
unisotropy is
physical fact. A near c body emitts only forward radiation.
Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics. Different
occurances for the same thing shat should be unique.
Not to say that this result of SR withspeaks the first postulate of SR.
SR
in its present form is inconsistent.

Isotropic radiation looks anisotropic when you are moving towards it.
That is handled well by special relativity.

I know that. The next answer to this post for example denies that in his
reply.
He says EM radiation is isotropic in all frames in contrary to what we two
know from SR books.
It does not only look so as you say. Its a different reality. That is what i
think.
And without an absolute frame you get Ghost Physics. Thats my point.







SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime
concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have
hundred
different times at this point.
SR many particle mechanics without gravity as in Landau Lifschitz is
based
on the Eigentime concept. But this concept is in cnflict with the
roomtime
concept of GR.

The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery
transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves. Those waves exist for example within
the vacuum gap of a double prism when on the infall prism the total
reflection condition is fulfilled. If you bring another prism in the
near, a
certain amunt of light tunnels through. The vacuum gap is almost
instantly
passed by the signals and photons.
Instant effects are denied by relativity. Their existance shows that the
universe has everywhere the same time !
GR breakes with this discovery. GR is wrong. Einstein himself would say
that
today.

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit
together.
Bad is that moderated groups deny physical dicussions around this facts.
SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.
The
existance superluminal signal and energy transfer breakes the second
postulate.

I think you'll find that no signal or energy is transferred
superluminally in the experiment you are referring to. Some people
suggest a signal can be passed superluminally using quantum
entanglement a la EPR but I'll believe it when I see it.

I have the complete theory for the Nimtz experiment. Explained as normal
reflection and refraction
with makroscopic index theory based on makroskopic electrodynamics. Simple
theory.
Therefore i say Nimtz is classical optics nothing else and he measures and
interpretes right.







And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical
fact.
But here the lab time not the eigentimes s taken to plot the
experimental
results.
This shows that the eigentime hocus pocus in relativistic (SR) point
mechanics as figured out in Landau Lifschitz is mistaken.

Relativity theory is wrong. The present theory must be overworked.
Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

I see a large amount of discussion of the experimental limits of
relativity theory, and not just in the newsgroups but also in
respected journals. You're right there are some elements of quantum
mechanics that seem to not fit in well with relativity but I think
there is some hope, all is not lost

I think GR is fully wrong and SR mistaken in many points.

[Note that every "fact" you claim is either wrong or does not contradict
the predictions of relativity.]


Josef Matz wrote:
Relativity theory has a lot of misconceptions.

Not really. But you DEFINITELY have misconceptions about relativity.


The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

You are confused, and are using a PUN on "preferred frame". The CMBR
defines a "preferred frame" only in that it is at rest wrt the CMBR --
any object defines such a "preferred frame", and we on earth usually
"prefer" to use a frame at rest wrt the earth. SR denies a "preferred
frame" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in such a
frame. There is no logical connection between these two meanings, and
the presence of the CMBR does not invalidate relativity in any way.

wrt = "with respect to"


A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics.

Yes, such a frame can always be defined. Einstein did not "ignore" this
fact, he knew it was IRRELEVANT to the phenomena he was explaining.


Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.

Actually, COBE measured 390 km/s and WMAP measured 370 km/s. I don't
remember the errorbars, but I'm pretty sure they are on the order of 10
km/s or less. These are the speed of the sun wrt the CMBR; whether or
not that is "absolute velocity in space" depends on what one means by
that phrase (most modern physics don't ascribe any meaning to it at all).


Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy is
physical fact.

Again you are confused. Look up "Doppler shift", which completely
explains this. While there is no necessity for an object to emit thermal
radiation isotropically, if it does so in its rest frame, then in frames
moving wrt that frame the radiation will not be isotropic.


Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this? or what ghost?

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understandable.


SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have hundred
different times at this point.

I do not understand your non-standard term "roomtime"; I can guess what
"Eigentime" means (I assume it is a german-english *******ization
meaning "own time").

You are confusing "time" with "time coordinate". In relativity, each
object carries its own natural coordinate system, including its own time
coordinate. But this is not "time" in the way you try to use it.

Example: start with 100 watches, set them all running at
random times. Bring them all together and you have
PRECISELY the situation you describe -- there's no surprise
or contradiction in this at all.


The next point is the dicovery of superluminal signal and enery transport in
vacuum for evanescent light waves.

You are taking non-technical articles at face value and assuming they
reported accurately. They didn't. There is no actual detection of a
superluminal SIGNAL -- that is, no actual information was transferred
faster than c. At least this is the best I can infer from those reports....


But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit together.

SR has been known to be incomplete for more than a century. That's why
Einstein started off on his decade-long trek to GR. GR has been known to
be incomplete for many decades (since the 1960s IIRC).


SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Hmmm. YOU haven't shown this in your article. But yes, SR is indeed
incomplete (it's not "wrong" in the usual sense, it's just that its
domain of applicability is limited).


And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.

Only if one uses a now non-standard meaning of "mass". In any case the
phenomena you refer to are accurately described by SR/GR, and so do not
refute either of them.


Relativity theory is wrong.

Not really. SR is known to be limited to non-gravitational situations.
And GR is known to be limited to non-quantum systems. But neither is
"wrong", it's just that they are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES with domains of
applicability that do not cover the entire universe of phenomena.


The present theory must be overworked.

And lots of intelligent people are working on that. Not in this
newsgroup, of course (:-)).


Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Sure they are! But in a moderated group, attempts at discussions that
display gross incompetence are generally rejected -- that's what
moderation is for. For instance, I would expect any competent physics
moderator to reject your post to which I am responding, for just that
reason.


Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

For you, perhaps. But not for physicists.


Tom Roberts

On Aug 31, 7:36 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Josef Matz wrote:

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

You are confused, and are using a PUN on "preferred frame". The CMBR
defines a "preferred frame" only in that it is at rest wrt the CMBR --
any object defines such a "preferred frame", and we on earth usually
"prefer" to use a frame at rest wrt the earth. SR denies a "preferred
frame" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in such a
frame. There is no logical connection between these two meanings, and
the presence of the CMBR does not invalidate relativity in any way.

wrt = "with respect to"

CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references. You and SR lost this one.

A preferred reference frame always can
be constructed by the fix stars this point also was known to Einstein
ignoring this thread of classical mechanics.

Yes, such a frame can always be defined. Einstein did not "ignore" this
fact, he knew it was IRRELEVANT to the phenomena he was explaining.

You are still denying the experimental result. There goes all your
hypocritical advice on always betting on experimental results.

Together with the discovery of the backround radiation arose the question
what is our absolute velocity in spoace.
The background radiation on earth is isotropic and the deviation of the
fluctuations is less than 1 promille.
From this it can be concluded that our absolute velocity is less than 1000
km /s.

Actually, COBE measured 390 km/s and WMAP measured 370 km/s. I don't
remember the errorbars, but I'm pretty sure they are on the order of 10
km/s or less. These are the speed of the sun wrt the CMBR; whether or
not that is "absolute velocity in space" depends on what one means by
that phrase (most modern physics don't ascribe any meaning to it at all).

The experimental fact is right in your face, and you are still denying
it.

Another point that comes out as an inlogic in relativity are the laws for
the emission of radiation of relativistic bodies.
A moved body emitts unisotropic thermal radiation. This result of special
relativity is inlogic because according to special relativity
the same body emits isotropic radiation in his rest frame. The unisotropy is
physical fact.

Again you are confused. Look up "Doppler shift", which completely
explains this. While there is no necessity for an object to emit thermal
radiation isotropically, if it does so in its rest frame, then in frames
moving wrt that frame the radiation will not be isotropic.

You have misunderstood Herr Matz. Please try again.

Hint: Think of the surprise find of CMBR dipole.

Without an absolute frame of reference you have ghost physics.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this? or what ghost?

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understandable.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demands all references refer back to
the stationary background of the Aether. Just because you as an
experimental physicist missed that very important point, it does not
mean all others have. shrug

SR mechanics and statistical mechanics is based on the Eigentime concept.
How can one grow up a roomtime concept when at each point
where matter comes together not only one time exists Bring hundred
relativistic atoms together in 1 point in the universe and you have hundred
different times at this point.

I do not understand your non-standard term "roomtime"; I can guess what
"Eigentime" means (I assume it is a german-english *******ization
meaning "own time").

You are confusing "time" with "time coordinate". In relativity, each
object carries its own natural coordinate system, including its own time
coordinate. But this is not "time" in the way you try to use it.

Example: start with 100 watches, set them all running at
random times. Bring them all together and you have
PRECISELY the situation you describe -- there's no surprise
or contradiction in this at all.

Please allow me to translate. The bottom line is that relative
simultaneity is BS. shrug

But SR then is no complete theory anymore. SR and GR formed a unit together.

SR has been known to be incomplete for more than a century. That's why
Einstein started off on his decade-long trek to GR.

Let see. In that decade-long "trek", we witnessed Einstein "re-
discovered" the principle of equivalence after (I think) understanding
the Newtonian laws of gravity finally. Whew! Except this time,
Einstein was more than 300 years too late. Galileo beat him to it.
After observing how Newton was able to formulate the law of gravity by
watching how an object behaves under the gravitational influence of
the earth such as that falling apple, Einstein pictured himself as
that falling apple. Guess what. He got nowhere. GR was not derived
based on any of Einstein's stupid ideas. shrug

GR has been known to
be incomplete for many decades (since the 1960s IIRC).

Please elaborate on that. Are you referring to the Cosmological
constant? If so, you know I am going to have a lot of fun on this
one, don't you?

SR is partly wrong because both principles it is based on are wrong.

Hmmm. YOU haven't shown this in your article. But yes, SR is indeed
incomplete (it's not "wrong" in the usual sense, it's just that its
domain of applicability is limited).

Herr Matz is once again very correct. To resolve the twin's paradox
with time dilation, you must abandon the principle of relativity.
After all, the principle of relativity has been around for more than
300 years. Don't you think it is time for an "upgrade"?

And a further remark: The velocity dependance of mass is a physical fact.

Only if one uses a now non-standard meaning of "mass". In any case the
phenomena you refer to are accurately described by SR/GR, and so do not
refute either of them.

Except that energy-momentum tensor. From observation, mass is an
observer dependent parameter. To have an observer dependent quantity
affecting how space and time are curved should be a subject of
metaphysics not physics. shrug

Relativity theory is wrong.

Not really. SR is known to be limited to non-gravitational situations.
And GR is known to be limited to non-quantum systems. But neither is
"wrong", it's just that they are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES with domains of
applicability that do not cover the entire universe of phenomena.

They are no scientific theories. They cannot even resolve the
mathematical contradictions among themselves. shrug

The present theory must be overworked.

And lots of intelligent people are working on that. Not in this
newsgroup, of course (:-)).

Why are you so certain? Based on another of your guesses? Excuse
me. I meant postulates --- an ever celebrated guess.

Discussions around that are not allowed in the so called high scientific
moderated groups.

Sure they are! But in a moderated group, attempts at discussions that
display gross incompetence are generally rejected -- that's what
moderation is for. For instance, I would expect any competent physics
moderator to reject your post to which I am responding, for just that
reason.

Well, you are wrong again. sci.physics.research would filter out
personal attacks and trollish comments. That is good. However, all
attacks on my posts have been personal attacks and trollish comments.
Naturally, that newsgroup rejects every single one of my post. You
have double standards. If this is how you conduct your profession, I
cannot take your work seriously. You need to understand this.

Theoretical physics is at the end therefore.

For you, perhaps. But not for physicists.

Let's see. There are very few physicists who even know how the
Einstein field equations are derived. This is a tragedy in science.
Herr Matz is correct once again. The current trend of theoretical
physics is walking on thin ice. shrug

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:49:23 -0700, Koobee Wublee
wrote:

On Aug 31, 7:36 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Josef Matz wrote:

The first was the discovery of the background radiation.
The background radiation only is isotropic in a preferred
frame locally. Relativity in the present form does rigurosly deny this
point.

You are confused, and are using a PUN on "preferred frame". The CMBR
defines a "preferred frame" only in that it is at rest wrt the CMBR --
any object defines such a "preferred frame", and we on earth usually
"prefer" to use a frame at rest wrt the earth. SR denies a "preferred
frame" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in such a
frame. There is no logical connection between these two meanings, and
the presence of the CMBR does not invalidate relativity in any way.

wrt = "with respect to"

CMBR proves that there exists an absolute stationary frame of
reference where the laws of physics are no different from any other
frames of references. You and SR lost this one.

Just because you think the CMBR is an absolute frame of reference does
not mean it is one.

[snip remaining historical dishonesty combined with a complete lack of
understanding of physics]