|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/
Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life. Compare the following two quotations: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge University Press. Preprint. John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John Norton surely knows this. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life. Compare the following two quotations: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge University Press. Preprint. John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John Norton surely knows this. Pentcho Valev Whatever you say is simplistic. You are but one neuron within a 6 billion neuron mind. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 3:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life. Compare the following two quotations: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge University Press. Preprint. John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a... Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John Norton surely knows this. Pentcho Valev So is the end official end of your pathetic postings, too? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 [snip crap] ONTOLOGY! Ooooooh! Do we get ontogeny and philogeny too? How 'bout epistemology and heuristic reflexology? http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.htm Empirical observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot. HEY STOOOPID - LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR SHIFT KEY FOR POST TITLES. If empirical observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot, then Pentcho Valev is an empirical idiot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012 Hafele-Keating Experiment http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014 Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004) falling light http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf Nature 425 374 (2003) http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html Relativity in the GPS system http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html Relativistic effects on orbital clocks http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417 http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf PSR J0737-3039A/B deeply relativistic neutron star binary http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039 http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Experimental constraints on General Relativity http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf No aether http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 No Lorentz violation And a little more relativistic GPS good to sub-parts-per-billion accuracy by simple observation, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076 http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/ http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1 http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Uncle Al" wrote in message ... : Pentcho Valev wrote: : : http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ : Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime : June 13-15, 2008 : [snip crap] : : ONTOLOGY! Ooooooh! Do we get ontogeny and philogeny too? How 'bout : epistemology and heuristic reflexology? : : http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.htm : : Empirical observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot. HEY STOOOPID - : LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR SHIFT KEY FOR POST TITLES. If empirical : observation says Pentcho Valev is an idiot, then Pentcho Valev is an : empirical idiot. : : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment : http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html : http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf : http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml : http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012 : Hafele-Keating Experiment : : http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014 : Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003) : Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004) : falling light : : http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf : Nature 425 374 (2003) : http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf : http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html : Relativity in the GPS system : : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html : Relativistic effects on orbital clocks : : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417 : http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf : PSR J0737-3039A/B deeply relativistic neutron star binary : : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html : http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039 : http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html : Experimental constraints on General Relativity : : http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 : Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) : http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml : http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf : No aether : : http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ : http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 : No Lorentz violation : : And a little more relativistic GPS good to sub-parts-per-billion : accuracy by simple observation, : : http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076 : http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP : http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf : http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm : http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm : http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html : http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/ : http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html : http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm : http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1 : http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html : http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html : : : -- : Uncle Al : http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ : (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) : http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 No brain |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement. Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
"Shubee" wrote in message ... : On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: : Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT : BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. : Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the : theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary : physics." : : I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement. : : Shubee : http://www.everythingimportant.org/r.../directory.htm I agree that nothing remains of his whole castle in the air, too -- or yours. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life. Compare the following two quotations: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge University Press. Preprint. John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John Norton surely knows this. Sillier hypnotists have already announced, unconsciously, the end of Einstein's relativity by resurrecting Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/ed...ooklet_web.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect. Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler- Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of the source and the observer." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: ""Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux." Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly, there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays." Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 10:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/ Third International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime June 13-15, 2008 I expect this conference to announce the official end of Einstein's relativity because John Norton is an invited speaker and because he seems to be the only hypnotist in Einstein criminal cult who knows why Einstein turned against the field concept at the end of his life. Compare the following two quotations: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepa...ml#forthcoming "Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge University Press. Preprint. John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE." http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Of course, John Norton is just as dishonest as his criminal brothers but lately this type of dishonesty has become too dangerous and John Norton surely knows this. Sillier hypnotists have already announced, unconsciously, the end of Einstein's relativity by resurrecting Newton's emission theory of light: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/ed...ooklet_web.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: "In 1786, Robert Blair, an unknown astronomer from Edinburgh, gave a systematic treatment of a -classical and relativistic-Newtonian kinematics of light. Two years before, John Michell had developed a Newtonian theory of the action of gravitation on light, and invented what Laplace later called dark bodies. In the same way Soldner will calculate the deviation of light due to gravitation. Michell had also pointed out that the velocity of light could be measured with the help of refraction experiments and put forward the essence of the Einstein Doppler gravitational effect. Blair went a step further and inferred the existence of the Doppler- Fizeau effect: a variation of refraction due to a relative motion of the source and the observer." http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf Jean Eisenstaedt: ""Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux." Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly, there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
On Nov 20, 7:18 pm, Shubee wrote:
On Nov 20, 2:38 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that PHYSICS CANNOT BE BASED UPON THE FIELD CONCEPT, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." I agree with Einstein on this one obvious statement. Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm It's good to hear that you agree with Einstein. Perhaps you even understand what he meant by that. Considering that most of physics, even in his own day, was based on the field concept, it's never been very clear to a lot of people exactly what he was trying to say. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 962 | December 17th 07 12:45 PM |
RELATIVITY WITHOUT EINSTEIN LIGHT POSTULATE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | August 16th 07 06:43 PM |
EINSTEIN RELATIVITY: THE UNAMBIGUOUS AMBIGUITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 07 08:11 AM |
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 30th 07 04:55 PM |
Einstein "Theory of Relativity" | Lester Solnin | Solar | 7 | April 13th 05 08:17 AM |