A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 11th 13, 09:02 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

A light source emits pulses at time intervals Ts. A stationary receiver/observer receives the pulses at time intervals Tr=Ts. For that observer the speed of the pulses is:

c = L/Tr = L/Ts

where L is the distance between the pulses (arbitrarily chosen by the source). So far special relativity and sane science agree.

Now the receiver/observer starts moving towards the source at one third of the speed of the pulses themselves. Accordingly, Tr is shortened - for the moving observer we have:

Tr' = (3/4)Ts

Again, special relativity and sane science are in agreement:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) ...the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected... (...) As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

Finally, sane science concludes that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer has increased:

c' = L/Tr' = (4/3)c

Special relativity says nothing. Days and weeks pass in silence but then again winds from all over the world start bringing the victorious tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity".

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old October 15th 13, 10:15 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

Insofar as the speed of light is concerned, Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory was wrong but still sane science. It was sane, although wrong, to assume that the speed of light (relative to the observer) was independent of the speed of the emitter but it would have been totally insane to assume that this speed was independent of the speed of the observer as well. Maxwell was not "totally insane" of course:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

Einstein knew that the speed-of-light-independent-of-speed-of-observer concept was totally insane but still found it profitable to introduce it, after some wrestling:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

So Maxwell said the speed of light (relative to the observer) did depend on the speed of the observer, Einstein said it didn't. How are such problems solved in Divine Albert's world? By changing the past, as in Big Brother's world: nowadays 99% of the Einsteinians teach that Maxwell also said the speed of light didn't depend on the speed of the observer, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/S...15-ch27__2.pdf
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."

http://www.planetastronomy.com/speci...20mars2005.htm
Françoise Balibar: "Maxwell rentre en scène : il pense que la lumière se propage dans un milieu matériel baptisé éther, ce qui est une erreur, mais il pense aussi que la lumière est un champ électromagnétique, ça c'est révolutionnaire. Il met au point ses célèbres équations dans lesquelles la vitesse de la lumière est la même dans l'éther (référentiel absolu) et dans tout autre référentiel en translation uniforme."

http://sfloccari.lycee-berthelot.fr/...relativit_.pdf
Françoise Balibar: "En effet, lors d'un changement de référentiel à un autre en translation uniforme par rapport à lui, la vitesse de la lumière (appelée ici c) ne devient pas c+V; elle reste c. Cette circonstance, résultat obligé de la théorie de la lumière développée au milieu du XIXè siècle par Maxwell...."

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gfl/...5/Lecture1.pdf
"As Maxwell's equations provide a single wave solution, with a velocity c, Einstein proposed the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light: The velocity of light in free space is the same for all inertial observers."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 16th 13, 09:57 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

Einsteinians fear Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and teach that, although true, this postulate is somehow very bad and superfluous and should be avoided. Then, in moments of ecstasy, Einsteinians go even further: Even if the postulate is false and the speed of light is variable, Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains gloriously unaffected, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Richard Conn Henry: "In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativity - the discovery of the implication that E = mc2, and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as "Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g. relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course the second postulate producing the bizarre result."

http://www.amazon.com/ambitieux-Eins.../dp/2729819541
Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité restreinte de Poincaré, Jean Hladik, p. 115: "Le postulat d'Einstein a été considéré par ses contemporains, et l'est encore à l'heure actuelle par ceux qui n'ont pas renouvelé leurs connaissances, comme étant un postulat nécessaire aux fondements de la Relativité restreinte. C'est ce qui a en grande partie conduit à attribuer la paternité de la Relativité à Einstein. Or ce postulat est non seulement superflu mais encore il engendre un sérieux doute sur la crédibilité de la théorie relativiste."

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/re...ticle?id=16963
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Mais l'inutile et depuis longtemps caduc « second postulat » (celui de l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière) garde encore une place de choix dans les exposés."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity, 29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c. (...) The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la condition de l'exploiter à fond."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old October 16th 13, 03:10 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

It did turn the world inside out. The aftermaths:

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/...lton-Ratcliffe
Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest. It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense."

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle connaissent une crise grave."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve, je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant quelques siècles."

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old October 17th 13, 08:41 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

Sane science says that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin cannot be both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness. Special relativity gives an indirect reply: half of the Einsteinians teach that the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness, the other half teach it isn't:

The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness and cannot be ignored:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein 1918: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness and can be ignored:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks." [There is no turn-around acceleration at all in this "modified twin paradox" and yet the travelling twin gloriously returns younger.]

Needless to say, the doublethink kills the rational mind instantaneously and irreversibly:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4...22552b04_z.jpg

Once dead, the rational mind readily engages in triplethink, quadruplethink etc:

http://images.techiezlounge.com/post/2010/09/7.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old October 18th 13, 06:17 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

All clever Einsteinians know that relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible because the former is infected with the idiotic relativisic time, a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, whereas the latter uses the Newtonian universal time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...thor/fwilczek/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now."

http://www.franceinter.fr/player/reecouter?pause=442163
"Vous dites le temps c'est comme le paysage qui ne bouge pas..."
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Ça c'est une conception c'est pas forcement la bonne mais c'est celle que défend Einstein."
"C'est pas la vôtre?"
ETIENNE KLEIN: "Heu... disons que c'est une conception qui pose des problèmes quand on compare ce que dit la relativité d'Einstein à ce que dit une autre théorie physique qui s'appelle la physique quantique..."

That is, all clever Einsteinians know that the problem has a simple solution - just getting rid of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences. Yet of all clever Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a reason why the falsehood should be abandoned. 40 years of unsuccessful attempts to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics means 40 years of regular salaries for everybody. Solving the problem, that is, abandoning special relativity's insanity, would cause big trouble, as Peter Hayes explains:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

And there is more than just "the embarrassing question of WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER". Even if clever Einsteinians wished to abandon Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and its absurd consequences, they would be unable to do so. Buried under Einsteiniana's dung accumulated for more than a century, clever Einsteinians can only make slow movements in search for food. Any excessive activity would look like, and would have the effect of, a terrorist attack against the values of our civilization (antirelativists are sometimes explicitly compared with terrorists):

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheor...-of-physics-2/
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0305457v3.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Pentcho Valev
  #7  
Old October 18th 13, 01:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND SANE SCIENCE

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

An exaggeration? No. The idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity has been paralyzing (more precisely, killing) physics for a very long time. Actually everybody is avoiding it like plague but officially scientists have to regularly sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and pretend to believe the breathtaking story of the travelling twin who gloriously returns younger than his sedentary brother:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...thor/fwilczek/
Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c5.php
Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Einsteinians, why are you killing physics? Repentance? The picture below says "It's not too late" but I think it's too late:

http://deenoverduniya.files.wordpres...repentance.jpg

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CAN SPECIAL RELATIVITY BE SAVED ? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 27th 13 10:27 PM
VULNERABLE SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 14th 13 04:22 PM
NO HOPE FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 June 18th 13 03:51 PM
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 January 1st 09 04:20 PM
FOREVER SPECIAL RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 September 22nd 07 02:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.