Prev: is this theory consistent?
Next: Russel Prawitz Operator, the interesting Case
From: spudnik on 31 Jan 2010 22:09
like stringtheory, only less so;
SR and GR are "necessary, but insufficient."

> Where has it *ever* been shown to be wrong ?

thus:
just me, believes the web, and
I am probably lying about that.

thus:
may we call it, the hypostential ur-stuff?... so, if
you are going to create a theory,
what is an experiment that would show any thing,
other than ordinary matter & antimatter would necessitate?
> Mass NEVER displaces ether!! Ether flow through mass is required for

thus:
Brun's constant is the sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes;
is it transcendental?

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 7 Feb 2010 05:45
According to some Einsteinians, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
is in fact a consequence of idiotic effects known as length
contraction and time dilation:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "What has been shown is that rods
and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two
postulates [of special relativity] to be true together. But this
hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go
the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do,
in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light
is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."

That is, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is true only if a long
train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, an 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn and a bug can be both dead and alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: is this theory consistent?
Next: Russel Prawitz Operator, the interesting Case