On Sep 3, 6:38*pm, GSS wrote:

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...


That was a very well written article by you however the real issue is
not what Einstein and his contemporaries did but rather what happened
in the late 17th century Royal Society England where the real issues
have to be dealt with,after all,there is a feedback loop between the
toxic strain of empiricism that arose with Newton and the attempts of
the guys in the early 20th century to deal with it as best they
could,unfortunately it meant creating a bigger can of worms centering
around absolute/relative time,space and motion.

You may assume that the work of Newton represents a natural
progression from Galileo back through Kepler and on the great work
that began with Copernicus however the format Newton used to center
his agenda based on making no distinction between the behavior of
objects at a human level and planetary dynamics does not just take
liberties with the geometrical language of astronomy but distorts it
to such a degree that the original insights are unrecognizable.It
would help if empiricists themselves were interested in what Isaac was
actually doing with those absolute/relative time,space and motion
definitions but the incentive doesn't seem to be there even though his
distortions are fairly matter of fact ones and the payoff for
physicists in many,many magnitudes more than retaining the structure
which asks too much of experimental sciences and astronomy.

Despite his obfuscations,intentional or not,Newton clarifies a
conception just long enough to shed light on everything that
follows,the chances are that first time readers either won't grasp the
offending passage or will run to Isaac's defense while this is merely
laying out the physical considerations which do not tally with the
original language which produced the idea of a rotating and orbiting
Earth -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

It should be as offensive to an experimentalist as it is for an
astronomer as the antecedent empirical sciences never overreached with
the analogies as they applied to cause and effect drawn down from
planetary dynamics never mind trying to bump up experimental sciences
to planetary dynamics,solar system structure and cosmological
evolution.The empiricists prior to Newton were actually getting a lot
of work done and while much of it was later attributed to Newton,it
does not take away from the fact that what once was the start of a
really productive agenda to link cause and effect and apply it as
loose analogies between,say,planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects,that productive area disappeared when followers chained
themselves to Newton's concept which attempt to say too much with too
little information.An example of the productive nature of empiricism
before the all-sing,all-dancing agenda Isaac introduced can be found
in many of the letters that preceded Isaac's distortions -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyB...page&q&f=false

The upshot is that there will be no new revolutions nor anything
worthwhile that will contain the attention of the wider population
unless this is dealt with properly and while people may not care as
long as they are getting paid,it won't account for those people who
genuinely feel the loss of stature which is causing both empirical
sciences and astronomy to crumble like a train wreck happening in slow
motion.












2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/