THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9e2858065bda0?

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 1, 6:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev


If this is in fact the case, wish John D. Norton well, and advises him
to wear a flame retardant cloak. Also, that nothing named "covarient
Electrodynamics" existed in 1905, when early reserachers already did
realize the defection of an electron beam traversing an orthogonal
magnetic field experienced a radial acceleration (a curvature) in
magnetic field due to the q(vXB) force exerted on the charged
electrons, where q is the charge on an electron.

Most people learn this simply physics in highschool. Knowledge of how
to compute the impact of relativistic effects, and their importance on
particles being accelerated is generally learned in second year
college physics.

I wish Mr. Norton well, and would urge him not to give up his job at
Burger King until he is considerable farther along in his college
studies.

For those truly interested in observing the reality of Special
Relativity, simply borrow copy of one of the following texts on
particle accelerator design:

Livingston & Blewett, "Particle Accelerators. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1962

John J. Livingood, "Principles of Cylclic Particle Acclerators", D.
Van Nostrand Company, 1963

These require some education in physics and calculus to comprehend,
but form the basic referenced for the design of all particle
accelerators since the 1960s. Their physics is rather simple to any
physics major in his second year, and if I recally correctly, the math
needed is little more than a year of college level calculus.

Designs of high energy particle accelerators are heavily based on the
fundamentals contained in each of these two references, and for the
skeptic of Special Relativity, they are hard to ignore. The simple
fact is that unless you incorporate the mass increase with particle
energy/velocity as Einstein published into your timing computations,
nothing beyond a simple Van de Graff style acclerator is going to
function.

If you comprehend the basic physics, the reality of Special Relativity
becomes obious if you consider how a particle accelerator must be
designed for it to operate at high intermediate particle energy levels
and terminal levels.

Harry C.

On Jun 1, 8:26*pm, " wrote:
On Jun 1, 6:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev


If this is in fact the case, wish John D. Norton well, and advises him
to wear a flame retardant cloak. Also, that nothing named "covarient
Electrodynamics" existed in 1905, when early reserachers already did
realize the defection of an electron beam traversing an orthogonal
magnetic field experienced a radial acceleration (a curvature) in
magnetic field due to the q(vXB) force exerted on the charged
electrons, where q is the charge on an electron.

Most people learn this simply physics in highschool. Knowledge of how
to compute the impact of relativistic effects, and their importance on
particles being accelerated is generally learned in second year
college physics.

I wish Mr. Norton well, and would urge him not to give up his job at
Burger King until he is considerable farther along in his college
studies.

For those truly interested in observing the reality of Special
Relativity, simply borrow copy of one of the following texts on
particle accelerator design:

Livingston & Blewett, "Particle Accelerators. *McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1962

John J. Livingood, "Principles of Cylclic Particle Acclerators", D.
Van Nostrand Company, 1963

These require some education in physics and calculus to comprehend,
but form the basic referenced for the design of all particle
accelerators since the 1960s. *Their physics is rather simple to any
physics major in his second year, and if I recally correctly, the math
needed is little more than a year of college level calculus.

Designs of high energy particle accelerators are heavily based on the
fundamentals contained in each of these two references, and for the
skeptic of Special Relativity, they are hard to ignore. *The simple
fact is that unless you incorporate the mass increase with particle
energy/velocity as Einstein published into your timing computations,
nothing beyond a simple Van de Graff style acclerator is going to
function.

If you comprehend the basic physics, the reality of Special Relativity
becomes obious if you consider how a particle accelerator must be
designed for it to operate at high intermediate particle energy levels
and terminal levels.

Harry C.

Your error in logic is to assume that ONE theoretical explanation for
an experimental result is the only explanation, hence the erroneaous
conclusion that the facts PROVE the theory. Since scientific
orthodoxy has now declared that SR theory has been 'discovered' (as if
it were an experimental fact) it is therefore TRUE, so that all
further attempts to explain the facts are blocked from publication.
Thus, only one theory appears to be available, leaving you with the
impression that was intended. Why do you think that the Catholic
Church was so hard on Martin Luther?

On Jun 1, 3:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev


Thanks for the reference. Great web site.

Mais bordel, arrêtez de répondre !!!!!

Comment ça se fait qu'à chaque message de Leiticia ou Pencho, je
trouve 10 commentaires ???

Moi, ça fait des années que j'ai déserté le forum de physique pour
cause de pollution; je reviens de temps en temps pour voir, et ça ne
va pas mieux avec le temps !!

Je veux revoir un forum de physique convenable.

Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !
Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre ! Arrêtez de répondre !


On ne nourri pas un troll !!

Désolé, mais les gens "sains" qui répondent aux Vavlev, ils ne vallent
pas mieux que Vavlev lui-même, en termes de pollution.

Bonne soirée
Laurent

On Jun 2, 10:28*am, maxwell wrote:
On Jun 1, 8:26*pm, " wrote:





On Jun 1, 6:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre....

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev


If this is in fact the case, wish John D. Norton well, and advises him
to wear a flame retardant cloak. Also, that nothing named "covarient
Electrodynamics" existed in 1905, when early reserachers already did
realize the defection of an electron beam traversing an orthogonal
magnetic field experienced a radial acceleration (a curvature) in
magnetic field due to the q(vXB) force exerted on the charged
electrons, where q is the charge on an electron.

Most people learn this simply physics in highschool. Knowledge of how
to compute the impact of relativistic effects, and their importance on
particles being accelerated is generally learned in second year
college physics.

I wish Mr. Norton well, and would urge him not to give up his job at
Burger King until he is considerable farther along in his college
studies.

For those truly interested in observing the reality of Special
Relativity, simply borrow copy of one of the following texts on
particle accelerator design:

Livingston & Blewett, "Particle Accelerators. *McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1962

John J. Livingood, "Principles of Cylclic Particle Acclerators", D.
Van Nostrand Company, 1963

These require some education in physics and calculus to comprehend,
but form the basic referenced for the design of all particle
accelerators since the 1960s. *Their physics is rather simple to any
physics major in his second year, and if I recally correctly, the math
needed is little more than a year of college level calculus.

Designs of high energy particle accelerators are heavily based on the
fundamentals contained in each of these two references, and for the
skeptic of Special Relativity, they are hard to ignore. *The simple
fact is that unless you incorporate the mass increase with particle
energy/velocity as Einstein published into your timing computations,
nothing beyond a simple Van de Graff style acclerator is going to
function.

If you comprehend the basic physics, the reality of Special Relativity
becomes obious if you consider how a particle accelerator must be
designed for it to operate at high intermediate particle energy levels
and terminal levels.

Harry C.

Your error in logic is to assume that ONE theoretical explanation for
an experimental result is the only explanation, hence the erroneaous
conclusion that the facts PROVE the theory. *Since scientific
orthodoxy has now declared that SR theory has been 'discovered' (as if
it were an experimental fact) it is therefore TRUE, so that all
further attempts to explain the facts are blocked from publication.
Thus, only one theory appears to be available, leaving you with the
impression that was intended. *Why do you think that the Catholic
Church was so hard on Martin Luther?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I definitely agree that there are multiple models that COULD explain
physical effects, but most of these fail when put to experimental
validation because the vast majority of these are unable to
quantitatively and accurately predict empirical results of
experimentation.

Faith and external constraints have absolutely nothing to do with
scientific fact, which anyone with sufficient skill and education is
capable of verifying for themselves.

Learn the difference between ignorant or informed speculation,
credible theories, and established scientific fact. As my previous
post stated, Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity is accepted today
as scientific fact, because it is so easily tested, and the existence
of hundreds of functioning particle accelerators around the world
demonstrate its accurate predictions.

I went to a relatively conservative university where I was taught to
distrust everything that you read or hear. even that told to you from
individuals having great authority. Place absolute trust in only what
you personally can verify for yourself. This is why in college, when
you are taught physics, you have laboratory assignments in which you
personally verify what you have been taught.

That said, there are indeed multiple models or paradigms that we as
humans employ to view the functioning of the world in which we live.
With the advancement of science over the centuries, many of the
earlier paradigms have vanished, but newer theories and models are
proposed every day. We no longer believe in a heliocentric solar
system, nor do we believe in the Aether as a mechanism to explain the
propagation of electromagnetic radiation. We also no longer believe
that if you sail on the ocean far enough, that you will fall off the
world. We no longer believe that the earth is flat.

Experiment has disproved every one of these now obsolete concepts, and
we learn more every year. When I attended college, we were taught
that the coastal mountain ranges were created by what was then termed
'geosynclines', because then science had not yet discovered tectonic
plates although the concept had been theorized about for a number of
years. When experimental evidence was uncovered that tectonic plates
explained many more things than did geosynclines, back around 1960 the
geology texts were revised. Revision of concepts in the so called
"soft sciences" is a bit more common than revision of the concepts in
the hard sciences. Actually, I cannot recall any situation in the past
200 or so years that any fundamental physics concept was thrown out
and replaced by another. Even Einstein's revelations only augmented
Newton, but did not replace Newton's classical mechanics.

The science of physics is based on a few very fundamental models that
allow us to conceptually visualize how nature operates. No real
physicist views these as anything but models that can be tested and
accurately predict experimental outcomes. This is an area where
science accepts alternative theories, but subject them to experimental
confirmation and their ability to make accurate predictions.

These models or paradigms are subject to change, and likely will
change somewhere during the next 1,000 years, simply because they do
not hold all the answers. This is why scientists tend to focus on
anomalies from theoretical predictions, hoping that they will hold the
clue to a new and better paradigm.

If you were to understand a little more about science, you too will
come to understand this.

Harry C.

On Jun 1, 2:50*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...rowse_frm/thre...

Yes John Norton MAY declare the official end of Einstein's relativity
at the Minkowski conference - he is going to discuss the following
paper:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/
John D. Norton "Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant
Electrodynamics prior to 1905"

In my view, that is the cleverest paper ever written in Einstein
criminal cult.

Pentcho Valev


The first Principle of Motion: new motion is created by acceleration
through space.
New motion is detectable by mass as a weight flucuation.

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Jun 3, 12:25*am, " wrote:
Learn the difference between ignorant or informed speculation,
credible theories, and established scientific fact. As my previous
post stated, Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity is accepted today
as scientific fact, because it is so easily tested....

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Why do you think "later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity"? Are you just one of
those "later writers" ("later liars" would be better) when you say:
"Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity is accepted today as
scientific fact, because it is so easily tested"?

Pentcho Valev

The real reason Albert left Germany, is because relativity was disproved
in the 1920's & 1930's, by 2 inventions.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3752/hcoler1.htm

߃--¹¹

""ßf-- ¹¹"" wrote in message
...
The real reason Albert left Germany, is because relativity was disproved
in the 1920's & 1930's, by 2 inventions.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3752/hcoler1.htm

ßf--¹¹

Baloney, it was disproved in 1913 by Georges Sagnac.

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin

Androcles