| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » The farce of relativity of simultaneity
Page 10 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
|
| Author |
Message |
| Androcles |
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e9524b5-36ef-44ee-8848-0b42b97b948e@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 5:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
Quote: "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1feffbaf-9e6f-4393-8481-5e6d7bbf370f@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 11:10 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec50b16e-f1d5-4047-8ebd-8bf4705976a7@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 30, 8:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
|
|
news:1119122e-6bbf-4725-a465-05461051f0fc@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| > On Mar 30, 7:23 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
|
|
|
| > > On Mar 30, 2:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > > > On Mar 29, 9:15 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
|
| > > [...]
| > > > There is essentially NO VALUE in physics for two models that
have
| > > > completely identical predictions of experimental results.
| > > > Historically, and rightly so, there is simply no compelling
reason
to
| > > > entertain a second "interpretation" that does not distinguish
itself
| > > > in any *measurable* way from the prevailing model.
|
| > > I would say that that is a very poor modus operandi
| > > if one is attempting to find the objective truth. If one
| > > possible interpretation comes first, it becomes the
| > > prevailing model, and the other, which appears later,
| > > is then aribtrarily given all the burden of proof, as it were.
| > > That is really no better than selecting a model by tossing
| > > a coin.
|
| > > I think that, if experimental results cannot select one
| > > model over the other, the models themselves should be
| > > examined for greater or lesser completeness and
| > > internal consistency, and possible greater interpretive
| > > range, etc.
|
| > Sorry, but that's not
|
| > The infamous Phuckwit Duck's "it is not"
|
| Which in your mind is just as infamous as my "Yes, it is."
|
| Of course, anything I say makes you foam at the mouth. Just the way I
| like it.
So you admit to being a troll.
| Trolling you, yes.
So you admit to being a troll. So does Poe.
Trolls are lying cunts anyway.
| I am SO devastated that you think so.
Happy to hear it. Still, I've known it since your earned your name
with your [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck
to appear] speech, Duck, but it is so nice to extract the confession
without duress or coercion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c1112d1c-1186-4a45-bd0b-fa85c224ca5c@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| As someone has previously noted though, sometimes a theory only gains
| acceptance as the older generation dies off.
Have you accepted the four elements are earth, air, fire and water yet? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The Ghost In The Machine |
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.physics.relativity, PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
<2e9524b5-36ef-44ee-8848-0b42b97b948e@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
Quote: On Mar 30, 5:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1feffbaf-9e6f-4393-8481-5e6d7bbf370f@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 11:10 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec50b16e-f1d5-4047-8ebd-8bf4705976a7@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 30, 8:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
|
|
>news:1119122e-6bbf-4725-a465-05461051f0fc@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| > On Mar 30, 7:23 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
|
|
|
| > > On Mar 30, 2:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > > > On Mar 29, 9:15 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
|
| > > [...]
| > > > There is essentially NO VALUE in physics for two models that have
| > > > completely identical predictions of experimental results.
| > > > Historically, and rightly so, there is simply no compelling reason
to
| > > > entertain a second "interpretation" that does not distinguish
itself
| > > > in any *measurable* way from the prevailing model.
|
| > > I would say that that is a very poor modus operandi
| > > if one is attempting to find the objective truth. If one
| > > possible interpretation comes first, it becomes the
| > > prevailing model, and the other, which appears later,
| > > is then aribtrarily given all the burden of proof, as it were.
| > > That is really no better than selecting a model by tossing
| > > a coin.
|
| > > I think that, if experimental results cannot select one
| > > model over the other, the models themselves should be
| > > examined for greater or lesser completeness and
| > > internal consistency, and possible greater interpretive
| > > range, etc.
|
| > Sorry, but that's not
|
| > The infamous Phuckwit Duck's "it is not"
|
| Which in your mind is just as infamous as my "Yes, it is."
|
| Of course, anything I say makes you foam at the mouth. Just the way I
| like it.
So you admit to being a troll.
| Trolling you, yes.
So you admit to being a troll. So does Poe.
Trolls are lying cunts anyway.
I am SO devastated that you think so.
PD
Well, you are a troll PD. Androcles believes it, that
settles it, and everyone should follow it.  (At least
to the edge of the cliff, anyway.)
And yes, I also have a bridge for sale....
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PD |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 30, 10:43 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 30, 11:46 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 7:23 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 9:15 am, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
[...]
There is essentially NO VALUE in physics for two models that have
completely identical predictions of experimental results.
Historically, and rightly so, there is simply no compelling reason to
entertain a second "interpretation" that does not distinguish itself
in any *measurable* way from the prevailing model.
I would say that that is a very poor modus operandi
if one is attempting to find the objective truth. If one
possible interpretation comes first, it becomes the
prevailing model, and the other, which appears later,
is then aribtrarily given all the burden of proof, as it were.
That is really no better than selecting a model by tossing
a coin.
I think that, if experimental results cannot select one
model over the other, the models themselves should be
examined for greater or lesser completeness and
internal consistency, and possible greater interpretive
range, etc.
Sorry, but that's not science. That's something else. Perhaps
esthetics, perhaps philosophy, but not science. Science is based on
whether a greater range of experimental results are accurately matched
by the model. Period. No exceptions. You may not like that, but that's
how science is done. I recommend some reading on the history and
methodology of science. Do you need a reference? Perhaps you are
pursuing the wrong hobby.
I need no help to pursue a recommendation that indicates
no effort to actually understand what I say. The purpose is
surely to find what is objectively true, and not merely perfect
a narrow methodology in order to prove that one is 'doing
science'. The methodology is merely one approach used to
reduce the probability of adopting a false theory, but it is not
the only one.
I disagree. There are many methods of arriving at what is objectively
true, and what is objectively true pertains to more areas that
science. Some ethicists, for example, claim that there is an
objectively available ethos -- the way to arrive at it, however, has
nothing to do with science. Mathematics also drives toward what is
objectively true, but it is not science. There are many areas of
philosophy that aim toward what is objectively true, but philosophy is
not science.
Science is distinguished by the use of the scientific method. The
scientific method is engaged because it has demonstrated itself,
through practice, to be the most effective manner at arriving at the
most useful and accurate statements pertaining to the physical world.
This has developed to the point where, if the scientific method is not
engaged, it is no longer considered science.
At one time, hundreds of years ago, there was a softer distinction
between science and other philosophical investigations. In accord with
that, "science" was not used widely as descriptive of the endeavor and
"natural philosophy" was instead. However, starting about 400 years
ago, *science* was distinguished from philosophy precisely by virtue
of an enormously successful methodology.
What you are engaging in is philosophy, not science, according to an
accepted distinction that is centuries old. Do catch up.
PD
Quote: You can adhere to it in a letter-of-the-law spirit
as much as you please, but I don't agree with such an approach.
I don't need to be persuaded otherwise, and don't have a need
to prove that I am a 'scientist', and also don't need to force you
to change your mind. The actual, objective reality is what it is,
independently of 'science', and methodologies, and everything
else.
That's fine. But when you talk to *scientists*, you are talking with a
group of people who agree on a methodology to determine whether you
are right. If you want to demonstrate that you are right, AND if you
don't want to engage in that methodology to determine that you are
right, you have a double barrier to overcome. Of course, if you don't
want to bother in overcoming the barrier, you can always walk alone.
Consider what your end goals of your activities are, and then see if
your approach is conducive to that.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bryan Olson |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alen wrote:
Quote: Bryan Olson wrote:
Alen wrote:
[...]
Your "focus of propagation" has nothing to do with objective
truth. No equations, no predictions, nothing about how
objective reality actually turns out. You laid it over SR and
quantum non-locality, but it does not require either. You can
explain *any* observation as some "focus of propagation".
It is consistent with anything because it tells us nothing.
Your theory isn't equivalent to SR; it's equivalent to the
theory that little invisible people constantly manipulate our
experimental apparatus and even our senses, so that our results
always come out as the Gnome-king has decreed. The two theories
make the same predictions: none; and can explain the same
possible observations: all.
The sum total of what you say is simply that you disagree
and don't accept my theory as having any value or relevance.
No, those are facts on which I base my opinion that your
theory has no value or relevance.
Quote: You are entitled to your view, but you could easily have
expressed it with less sarcasm and contempt. I need
hardly say that I have the independence to be not in the
least persuaded or discouraged by what you say, since
I don't think it is true.
Don't think it's true? Just count the equations and
predictions of your theory.
Quote: We have ample evidence of such an approach on
this NG, and those here who accuse the orthodoxy of being
an orthodoxy, or a cult, or a priesthood, therefore do not do
so without reason.
Perhaps you should draw some space-ships and send your designs
to NASA, or maybe a college of neurology could use your ideas
on brain surgery.
Where do you get the supposition that I have some kind of
desperate need to have my views accepted by such people?
I get the idea that you think you can dismiss, without bothering
to understand it, the body of scientific knowledge that many
worked long and hard to discover.
Quote: I am content to merely publish my view as I see fit, for the
benefit of anyone who seeks to understand what is actually
true, and it is then for others to decide for themselves as to
what merit if has or doesn't have.
And I'm content to point out how silly the crank theories here
really are.
Quote: I do, however, reserve the
right to resist a prevailing theory which I see as having led
the whole of humanity to a false understanding of space
and time.
You'd need to understand that theory before you could
meaningfully disagree with it. In your version of the twins
paradox, you had the twins meeting and each seeing the other
as younger. That's not SR.
--
--Bryan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 28, 3:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 28, 5:17 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 3:09 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please stop playing dumb. We have been through this more than
enough. Is this your action of capitulation just like a possum
playing dead?
It's neither, thanks. But it is declining to try to educate a dead
stump further.
We are discussing physics not you teaching me. All of a sudden, you
started throwing the Orwelling education. As I have said in the
previous post, the following fits a description of you.
** MYSTYCISM IS WISDOM
Preaching the religion of SR despite the twin's paradox
and preaching of GR despite its man-made mathematical
foundations.
The twin paradox is not a real paradox since it relativity can
make unambiguous predictions regarding the results. Furthermore, these
unambiguous predictions have been experimentally verified. Of course,
relativity theory is used every day to improve GPS determinations of
position.
However, one of the most direct validations of special relativity
on a macroscopic scale was the Hefele-Keating experiment. Hefele wrote
an article in Science describing how the calculations were performed.
There was no ambiguity in the predicted results. You should read the
article. There is an article in the same isue concerning the
experiment itself. This is an early experiment, so it may be a little
easier to understand than description of GPS engineering.
Quote: ** PLAGIARISMIS CREATIVITY
Endorsement ofplagiarismby canonizing Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
I have in front of me a copy of the book, "The Einstein Theory of
Relativity" by H. A. Lorentz) (Copyright 1920). H. A. Lorentz called
it the "Einstein theory," even though the Lorentz transformations are
named after him. Lorentz also described the "twin paradox," and did
not find an error in relativity. Are you calling H. A. Lorentz a
nitwit, a plagiarist, and another liar?
Poincare also claimed that Einstein got there first with the
theory of relativity.
Now, you can disagree with Lorentz and Poincare. The question of
who "invented" relativity is a matter of opinion. I don't want you to
feel that anyone thinks you aren't as smart as Lorentz or Poincare.
Furthermore, don't feel compelled to agree with relativity. As long as
you call both Lorentz and Poincare nitwits, I can't fault you for
calling Einstein a nitwit. And maybe Lorent and Poincare are both
liars, too.
However, you called Dr. Einstein a liar a plagiarist. Now,
Lorentz knew Einstein's work and called the theory "Einstein's
Relativity." Now do you think Lorentz was such a compulsive liar that
he gave Einstein credit, even at the expense of his own reputation?
Why did H. A. Lorentz call the book, "Einstein's Relativity?"
In my opinion, that title condemned H. A. Lorentz to death. I
think the gestapo killed Lorentz just so people wouldn't see the
unwilling Nazi heroe admit the genius of a Jew. Another theory is that
Lorentz purposely gave credit to Einstein on purpose, because he felt
sorry for the Jews. However, neither theory is consistent with
Einstein being a liar or a plagiarist.
I think the only one who could call Einstein a liar is a real
liar, regardless of the state of relativity theory. So if you are not
a liar, please admit that Einstein is not "the liar." If you don't, H.
A. Lorentz may rise up and get you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pmb |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Darwin123" <drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75d1b886-039f-486a-98b6-7f141dbb26dd@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Mar 28, 3:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:17 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 3:09 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please stop playing dumb. We have been through this more than
enough. Is this your action of capitulation just like a possum
playing dead?
It's neither, thanks. But it is declining to try to educate a dead
stump further.
We are discussing physics not you teaching me. All of a sudden, you
started throwing the Orwelling education. As I have said in the
previous post, the following fits a description of you.
** MYSTYCISM IS WISDOM
Preaching the religion of SR despite the twin's paradox
and preaching of GR despite its man-made mathematical
foundations.
The twin paradox is not a real paradox since it relativity can
make unambiguous predictions regarding the results.
Actually, by definition, the twin paradox is a "real" paradox since it fits
the definition of the term "paradox." Otherwise it wouldn't have been named
such. Recall the term as it applies to the twin paradox
Paradox - a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to
common sense and yet is perhaps true b: a self-contradictory statement that
at first seems true c: an argument that apparently derives
self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
Quote:
** PLAGIARISMIS CREATIVITY
Endorsement ofplagiarismby canonizing Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
Einstein the nitwit huh? Well that tells us a lot about you!
Pete |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Darwin123 |
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 17, 11:52 pm, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...@somewhere.net> wrote:
Quote: "Darwin123" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:75d1b886-039f-486a-98b6-7f141dbb26dd@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 3:21 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:17 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, 3:09 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Please stop playing dumb. We have been through this more than
enough. Is this your action of capitulation just like a possum
playing dead?
It's neither, thanks. But it is declining to try to educate a dead
stump further.
We are discussing physics not you teaching me. All of a sudden, you
started throwing the Orwelling education. As I have said in the
previous post, the following fits a description of you.
** MYSTYCISM IS WISDOM
Preaching the religion of SR despite the twin's paradox
and preaching of GR despite its man-made mathematical
foundations.
The twin paradox is not a real paradox since it relativity can
make unambiguous predictions regarding the results.
Actually, by definition, the twin paradox is a "real" paradox since it fits
the definition of the term "paradox." Otherwise it wouldn't have been named
such. Recall the term as it applies to the twin paradox
Paradox - a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to
common sense and yet is perhaps true b: a self-contradictory statement that
at first seems true c: an argument that apparently derives
self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
** PLAGIARISMIS CREATIVITY
Endorsement ofplagiarismby canonizing Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
Einstein the nitwit huh? Well that tells us a lot about you!
Pete
I don't think he was a nitwit, I think he is a genius. I was
quoting the person that I was replying to, who offended me deeply. A
mistake may have been made, as I remember replying to another post.
The person that I was replying to called Einstein a nitwit, and a
plagerist. He was calling Einstein a plagerist for riping off the work
of H. A. Lorentz.
I was pointing out that Einstein couldn't have been a plagerist, at
least for ripping off Lorentz, because Lorentz knew and approved of
Einstein's work.
I perceive of most of these "Einstein the plagerists" posts as
really an attack on the Jews. The Nazis used to use Lorentz for
propaganda purpose, and I think this is a remnant of that campaign. In
any case, Lorentz did do a lot of work leading to relativity. Much of
the work these guys attack is really the work of Lorentz. Therefore,
if they want to attack Einstein this way they should, logically,
attack Einstein.
If Lorentz invented relativity, and relativity is stupid, then
Lorentz should be the one to be called stupid. Einstein can't be both
a plagerist and stupid at the same time. Einstein is stupid=Lorentz is
stupid. I was pointing this out.
I think it is relevant to physics to discuss the fine points of
the work of Lorentz. This is a "physics.relativity" forum. So I think
it is fair to discuss the work of H. A. Lorentz, and how it fits into
todays science.
I don't think the hardcore Nazis liked theorists of any type.
They hated Lorentz and all those other "eggheads" in general. They
liked the weapons that scientists made, but they hated abstract
science very much. So they sometimes cultivated scientists to make
weapons and even used them as propaganda icons for the general public.
However, just ask any of these Nazi wannabees about the scientific
work of H. A. Lorentz. In general, these guys who praise Lorentz at
the expense of Einstein know neither. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| rbwinn |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 25, 11:54�am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 25, 6:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 2:18 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
The relativity of simultaneity as explained in
SR is the greatest farce ever. The claim that
simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on
the observer, is the biggest lie perpetrated on
science. Of course, you can see event S
happening before event S', and another observer
can see event S' hapenning before event S.
What you observe is not the event itself, but
the light or other kind of information some material
systems emitted in that event.
That is a major misconception on your part.
That two observers will SEE the events happening at different
times is a trivial point.
The important point is that even after taking into account their
differences in distance to events S and S' and subtracting the
time delay due to the finite speed of light, the two observers
cannot agree on the order of events.
Nature don't bother whether two or more observers
agree or not. If event S is the cause of event S', but you
observe S' before S,
Did you miss what every single respondent said?
The time assigned to an event is not the time
you observe the signal. It's the time it
occurred in your frame.
Yes, and subtract the time light takes to travel
from that event to the time you observe the signal,
and you will have the time assigned to that event
in your frame of reference. Of course, there is
always the problem of knowing what is the speed
of light. If you assume that speed of light is a universal
constant, it wouldn't be surprising you had computed
the distances to remote galaxies wrongly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Relativity of simultaneity is a mistake Einstein made in his
mathematics. It is caused by transposition of frames of reference.
Light propagates from the point where it was emitted in a frame of
reference, not from where it was emitted in a different frame of
reference.
Robert B. Winn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| PD |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 22, 12:16Â am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
Quote: On Mar 25, 11:54�am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 6:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 2:18 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Mar 25, 12:24 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
The relativity of simultaneity as explained in
SR is the greatest farce ever. The claim that
simultaneity is not absolute, but dependent on
the observer, is the biggest lie perpetrated on
science. Of course, you can see event S
happening before event S', and another observer
can see event S' hapenning before event S.
What you observe is not the event itself, but
the light or other kind of information some material
systems emitted in that event.
That is a major misconception on your part.
That two observers will SEE the events happening at different
times is a trivial point.
The important point is that even after taking into account their
differences in distance to events S and S' and subtracting the
time delay due to the finite speed of light, the two observers
cannot agree on the order of events.
Nature don't bother whether two or more observers
agree or not. If event S is the cause of event S', but you
observe S' before S,
Did you miss what every single respondent said?
The time assigned to an event is not the time
you observe the signal. It's the time it
occurred in your frame.
Yes, and subtract the time light takes to travel
from that event to the time you observe the signal,
and you will have the time assigned to that event
in your frame of reference. Of course, there is
always the problem of knowing what is the speed
of light. If you assume that speed of light is a universal
constant, it wouldn't be surprising you had computed
the distances to remote galaxies wrongly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Relativity of simultaneity is a mistake Einstein made in his
mathematics. Â It is caused by transposition of frames of reference.
Light propagates from the point where it was emitted in a frame of
reference, not from where it was emitted in a different frame of
reference.
Those points coincide.
> Robert B. Winn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 10 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:55 am
|
|