🚀 go-pugleaf

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> We published a new paper
> 
> " Notes on physical Absolute "
> 
> in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1
> 
> *Abstract*
> 
> Basing on the analysis of theoretical construction and experimental
> results, this paper shows that Mach's debunking the Newtonian
> "Absolute" originated the new Einsteinian "absolute" in the form of
> Minkowski 4D space-time metric which has caused only the primitivism
> in physics and impeded its development.
> In fact, relation between the Absolute and Relative is determined by
> the permanently moving edge of our knowledge and necessity in some
> basic reference frame which would allow us to generalise in the utmost
> correct way our particular results of studying the physical phenomena.
> So at every stage of physics development, the concept of the absolute
> reference frame reflects the highest level of knowledge of the stage.
> At the today level it would be quite admissible to use, as an approach
> to the absolute reference system, some system related to the aether in
> the surrounding us near space.
> 
> Please enjoy reading full text:
> 
> http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#absolute
> 
> I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
> hear your opinion.
> 
> Sergey.

Impressive Sergey! I had taken on the Fizeau experiment independently,
though you might have been watching:-) I successfully, and 'easily'
derived a Galilean solution without the aid of a drag coefficient.
However the time delay that I incorporated can certainly be equated to a
drag, since during the time that the molecules have stored the potential
energy of the wave, that energy is dragged along with the molecules,
that is, rather than being in a propagational state as they are when
moving through the space (vacuum) between the molecules.

I was particularly impressed by your method of discounting Einstein's
'first order of approximation' between the two contradictory equations
that he introduces. I had also addressed this fallacy in my threads.
I'll examine the entire site and maybe discuss with you any objections
to the remainder of its content, but so far I have found nothing
objectionable within it. I look forward to your future contributions on
these matters.

-- 
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper