[math-fun] Relativity Challenge
Please pass on by if you're not interested in cranks.
Scientists and researchers have scrutinized Einstein's work and have been unable to definitively find anything wrong with it... until now! Best of all, you don't have to have a PhD to understand and verify Einstein's mistake for yourself. All that's required is an understanding of basic Algebra, access to Einstein's papers, and information to guide the way....
-- Thane Plambeck http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm
--- Thane Plambeck <thane@best.com> wrote:
Please pass on by if you're not interested in cranks.
And if you are interested in relativity cranks, then have a look at http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com I asked their editor, Cynthia Whitney (who was in my physics class at MIT) for their best reason why they believe relativity is wrong. She answered that stellar aberration and the Sagnac effect were inconclusive about verifying relativity. (Stellar aberration is the change in the observed position of a star as the observer's, i.e. Earth's, velocity changes. Sagnac effect the fringe shift produced in a rotating interferometer.) I pointed out that these two effects are of order v/c, and thus are not able to discern the difference between Galilean and Lorentz invariance. I never heard from her again. Gene
Scientists and researchers have scrutinized Einstein's work and have been unable to definitively find anything wrong with it... until now! Best of all, you don't have to have a PhD to understand and verify
Einstein's mistake for yourself.
All that's required is an understanding of basic Algebra, access to Einstein's papers, and information to guide the way....
-- Thane Plambeck http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
If an effect is unable to discern a difference between Lorentz and Galilean invariance, doesn't that make it indifferent in support or rejection of relativity? Rich -----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces+rschroe=sandia.gov@mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Eugene Salamin Sent: Thu 9/29/2005 10:26 AM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Relativity Challenge --- Thane Plambeck <thane@best.com> wrote:
Please pass on by if you're not interested in cranks.
And if you are interested in relativity cranks, then have a look at http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com I asked their editor, Cynthia Whitney (who was in my physics class at MIT) for their best reason why they believe relativity is wrong. She answered that stellar aberration and the Sagnac effect were inconclusive about verifying relativity. (Stellar aberration is the change in the observed position of a star as the observer's, i.e. Earth's, velocity changes. Sagnac effect the fringe shift produced in a rotating interferometer.) I pointed out that these two effects are of order v/c, and thus are not able to discern the difference between Galilean and Lorentz invariance. I never heard from her again. Gene
Scientists and researchers have scrutinized Einstein's work and have been unable to definitively find anything wrong with it... until now! Best of all, you don't have to have a PhD to understand and verify
Einstein's mistake for yourself.
All that's required is an understanding of basic Algebra, access to Einstein's papers, and information to guide the way....
-- Thane Plambeck http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
--- "Schroeppel, Richard" <rschroe@sandia.gov> wrote:
If an effect is unable to discern a difference between Lorentz and Galilean invariance, doesn't that make it indifferent in support or rejection of relativity?
Rich
Yes, that was exactly my point to the editor of GED. I was hoping that their best argument that Einstein was wrong could lead to a fruitful dialog, but instead it turned out to one whose uselessness should have been obvious to them. The GED people are not ordinary cranks; they are mostly physics PhDs, and many hold faculty positions.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces+rschroe=sandia.gov@mailman.xmission.com on behalf of Eugene Salamin Sent: Thu 9/29/2005 10:26 AM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] Relativity Challenge
--- Thane Plambeck <thane@best.com> wrote:
Please pass on by if you're not interested in cranks.
And if you are interested in relativity cranks, then have a look at
http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com
I asked their editor, Cynthia Whitney (who was in my physics class at MIT) for their best reason why they believe relativity is wrong. She answered that stellar aberration and the Sagnac effect were inconclusive about verifying relativity. (Stellar aberration is the change in the observed position of a star as the observer's, i.e. Earth's, velocity changes. Sagnac effect the fringe shift produced in a rotating interferometer.) I pointed out that these two effects are of order v/c, and thus are not able to discern the difference between Galilean and Lorentz invariance. I never heard from her again.
Gene
Scientists and researchers have scrutinized Einstein's work and have been unable to definitively find anything wrong with it... until now! Best of all, you don't have to have a PhD to understand and verify
Einstein's mistake for yourself.
All that's required is an understanding of basic Algebra, access to Einstein's papers, and information to guide the way....
-- Thane Plambeck http://www.plambeck.org/ehome.htm
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Eugene Salamin -
Schroeppel, Richard -
Thane Plambeck