🚀 go-pugleaf

Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

> Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<XeoMb.6036$zj7.3988@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
>> 
>> > Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<A_IKb.40467$Pg1.19800@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> >> Harry wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > 
>> >> > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net...
>> >> >> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>> >> >> > message news:btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
>> >> >> > > news:a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com...
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > [snip
>> >> >> > >
> Dear Russ, I understand well your difficulties in trying to sort out
> these idle-walking symbols of relativistic utopia. But I have to
> distress you recalling that mathematical symbols are not the physics
> yet. Think yourself: when studying tensor calculus, you naturally
> studied also algebras and know, the formalisms of algebras (fields,
> rings, groups, semigroups etc.) differ mainly in admissible operators
> for operation on some sets. If you add or omit an operator, change or
> limit its function, you will yield a new algebra. The main aim is to
> provide the closed cycle of transformation. With it both previous and
> new algebra are fully correct in frames of given transformations.
> Which is false? In frames of mathematics both are equally correct!
> This is the property of mathematics: what you gave in the statement
> that you yielded. But what namely have we to give in the statement,
> relativists try to hide, as just in phenomenology of physical
> processes are their principal problems.
> 
> You are saying,
> 
>>All of Einstein's work reduces to Newton for relative velocities <<
> C.
> 
> Not so. First Einstein removed the Newton's absolute space, made this
> space empty, and only then, on these grounds, he introduced constant
> velocity of light in all frames. With these "innovations" Newton's
> mechanics fully stops its validity, as all three its laws are
> violated. And new Einstein's "mechanics" didn't substitute Newton's
> mechanics. To understand, try to calculate with this "mechanics" the
> motion of body in non-inertial frame. ;-) You will yield a full absurd
> that contradicts even the postulates of that theory. This is why all
> relativists bashfully confine themselves to the most trivial problems
> and 1D motion. Though, in particular, Pauli made an attempt to
> calculate accelerated motion in his monograph "Relativity", but this
> attempt vanished in the first transformations, undertaking no step to
> non-inertial frames. And you are repeating after them that Newton is a
> limiting case of Einstein. No, these are relativists who want to
> persuade us all in that. But for it, SR not only has to be reduced to
> Newton's system IN SOME PARTICULAR CASES, it has also to have so
> complete scope for transformations as Newton's conception has.
> Relativists will have it available after they see their own ears
> without mirror. They fully understand their feebleness, this is the
> source of so much malice and swearing at classical physics which
> relativists transfer to their opuses.
> 
> This is why, if you really want to grasp the issue, I would advice
> you, put tensors aside and try to understand the meaning of classical
> laws. This is where is the development.
> 
> True, the subject of this thread is some other and I would be grateful
> if you express your opinion as to Leo's question and my respond. This
> is of not small importance, as in my respond I essentially change the
> basic formula of radio physics and factually show that standard
> analysis of near field of EM radiation was still based on the formula
> that was derived incorrectly. And to the point, you are saying, this
> is Einstein's merit that he established the postulate of constant
> velocity of light in all frames of reference. Experience shows the EM
> waves velocity inconstant in the near field, so this famous postulate
> is violated even out of any transition between the reference frames.
> We supporters of classical wave physics know the cause and have the
> mathematical model, we need not for this relativistic postulates. We
> have the regularities of classical physics that are based on its
> phenomenology and work as it is done, not as definite persons desire.
> This is why Franz and Bilge are so angry! ;-) Notice, they wrote
> volumes here but said still nothing.
> 
> I wish you every success in understanding the essence of physical
> processes.
> 
> Sergey
I suggest you take some time to read and understand the original
publications. I have and I'm not about to challange Einstein, or Newton on
their ability to do math correctly. For example you can't get to E=mc^2
without E=(mv^2)/2 which is from Newtons laws.
This is not to say I agree that Newton and Einstein got things correct. Just
that I'm going to be very careful about how I challange them.
-- 
Russ Lyttle
lyttlec(@)earthlink.net