Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

[Glird]

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:34:19 +0100
From: "Laski" <la...@autocom.pl>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] John, Attached Please find the Better Version
of the Exercises
Message-ID: <60E8508EE9534ACDB2D2872C4CD4660D@xhqx443ro87wzr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> Hi Byouhgha and All,
> I fully agree that LT formulae refer to the one-dimensional case only.

How can y = y' and z =  z' couple with x = (x' - vt)/q to be only one dimension?

glird

*******************************************

[Hartwig Thim]

Dear Glird,
but the more critical mistake is that the equation is logically wrong:
x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0. This is impossible! And kills special relativity.
Happy New Year!
Hartwig Thim
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:37:43 -0500 (EST)
> Von: Glird <gl...@aol.com>
> An: membe...@worldnpa.org
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

--
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[Roger Anderton]

Its what "they" do with the equation next thats nonsense.

 

"they" have 0 =0

 

and do nonsense like divide both sides by 0 and think they have 1=1

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have told me that
0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is yielding the big catastrophy, called "Special Relativity".
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:06:51 -0000
> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>

--
GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

[Roger Anderton]

Hartwig

 

Exactly, but then the philosophy of the physicists has been since Einstein, not to care about the accuracy of their math and instead deem experimental evidence is more important. Yet when they do that they bodge both the math and the experiments.

 

Roger

[Klaus Kern]

Hartwig,

what you are writing here is nonsense. 0=0 is a true statement in mathematics. As true as 1=1. Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told you, that 0=0 must not be done (what ever the meaning of this shall be).

Of course dividing by zero for solving equations in general is wrong. When you are alleging that Lorentz transformation has been derived by division by zero, you have to proof that. But I can assure you, you will not succeed.

x²+y²+z²=c²t² in system S is telling exactly one thing about the light source related to S: At the time stamp t=0 the light source is at x=y=z=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the light source at any time t not equal 0. Considering only x²+y²+z²=c²t², you don't even know whether the light source is moving or not (related to S).

Same is true for x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'² in system S'. It's telling exactly one thing about the light source related to S': At the time stamp t'=0 the light source is at x'=y'=z'=0 and generates a light flash. Nothing is known about the spatial position of the light source at any time t' not equal 0. Considering only x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t'², you don't even know whether the light source is moving or not (related to S').

So, where do you think the contradiction should be?

Klaus

---

Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>

An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 12:25:03 Uhr

[Roger Anderton]

using

 

x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

setting them equal we have c²t² = c²t²  we have t = t' +ve solution

 

"they" don't want that so they change (1) and (2) to

 

x²+y²+z² - c²t² = 0

 

x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0 

 

and say that they are equal

0=0

 

 

but 1 -1 =0

2-2 =0

3-3 = 0 etc

 

so no connection between whatever (1) equals and whatever (2) equals

 

 

 

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
so they are. If, for example, a butcher weighs a T-bone stake and finds that its weight is 1Kg then they say, the butcher has verified General Relativity.
Poor guys, so they are, Mozart would say "Cosi fan tutte".
Maybe they will get enlightened in 2011, but I doubt it. All their genes would have to be replaced, but Darwin would prevent that from happening. They are hopelessly lost in 4D space. They only way to help them is to transfer them into the 5. Dimension (hell) by applying to them the LTs.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:45:18 -0000

--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail

[Klaus Kern]

Roger,

you wrote:
-----------------

using

 

x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

setting them equal we have c²t² = c²t²  we have t = t' +ve solution

-----------------

How can you set (1) and (2) equal? They aren't equal. At least not in general for all sets of x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t'.

Let's assume we have:

a = 5 (i)

and

b = 7 (ii)

so you mean, that from these eqs. follows:

a = b

and

5 = 7

This is you private idea of mathematics. No wonder, that you find contradictions in LT. Using this method you can find contradictions everywhere.

Klaus

---

Von: Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 14:38:10 Uhr

[Hartwig Thim]

Klaus,
there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate them yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is not getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² is not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them thereby predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring light flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if only one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
> Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2...@googlemail.com>

[Klaus Kern]

Hartwig,

Please name the excellent mathematicians which have told you, that 0=0 must not be done.

Thank you,

Klaus

---

Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 15:38:47 Uhr

[Klaus Kern]

Hartwig,

you wrote:

--------------------

Your explanation below is wrong.

--------------------

Where exactly is my explanation wrong?

You know, these are mathematics. There you have to show proofs for your statements.

Klaus

---

Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 15:38:47 Uhr

[Roger Anderton]

----- Original Message -----

From: Klaus Kern

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 2:31 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

Roger,

you wrote:
-----------------

using

 

x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

setting them equal we have c²t² = c²t²  we have t = t' +ve solution

-----------------

How can you set (1) and (2) equal?

 

 

 

If you can't understand that, then what hope is there for the harder stuff. If we have two equations then a possibility we can consider is that they might be equal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't equal. At least not in general for all sets of x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t'.

they are equal is one possibility

[Roger Anderton]

Its the start of a Basic fallacy-

 

with the following assumptions

 

0x1 = 0

0x2 =0

 

the following must be true

 

0x1 = 0x2

 

i.e 0=0

 

then divide through by 0

 

(0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2

 

then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2

 

So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which is the problem; as I have said.

 

 

 with

x²+y²+z² - c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0 

 

left hand side is

 

x²+y²+z²=  c²t²  (1)

 

right hand side is

 

x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)

 

but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not necessarily equal

 

so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal 2

 

1-1 = 2-2 =0

 

 

 

[Hartwig Thim]

Klaus,
one Univ.-Prof. Duschek, TU Wien, has died, I have to ask the others if I can pass on their privat communication.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:06:23 +0000 (GMT)

[Hartwig Thim]

Klaus,
please take for example the book of C. Moeller, "Relativitätstheorie", page 56, there you find the light flash contradiction. He is using one light flash generated at O at the moment when O' passes by. And read my 2010 NPA paper.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:10:21 +0000 (GMT)

[Klaus Kern]

Roger,

you are writing nonsense. You don't even get the basics.

See my comments below ...

---

Von: Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 16:23:04 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Klaus Kern

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 2:31 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

Roger,

you wrote:
-----------------

using

 

x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

setting them equal we have c²t² = c²t²  we have t = t' +ve solution

-----------------

How can you set (1) and (2) equal?

 

 

 

If you can't understand that, then what hope is there for the harder stuff. If we have two equations then a possibility we can consider is that they might be equal.

Equations cannot be equal, they only can be identical. Expressions, variables or values can be equal. If you ASSUME that x=x', y=y' and z=z' THAN and only THAN you can write c²t²=c²t'².

 

 

 

 

 

 

They aren't equal. At least not in general for all sets of x,y,z,t and x',y',z',t'.

they are equal is one possibility

No, it isn't. Because in general t ≠ t'

Klaus

[Roger Anderton]

---you are just being silly of course they can be equal, if a =1 and b =1 then a=b and they are equal.

 

 

they only can be identical.

 

 

--- from dictionary -- "identical" means: exactly the same; and "equal" means identical. So, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

 

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that in school.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000

> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

> Its the start of a Basic fallacy-

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roger Anderton]

Hartwig

 

I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical" and "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal

 

Definition of EQUAL

1

a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent

 

So he's gone off into his own little world.

 

Roger

[Klaus Kern]

Roger,

please explain in usual mathematical terms what you mean with "setting them equal":

-----------------

using

 

x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

setting them equal we have c²t² = c²t²  we have t = t' +ve solution

-----------------

Thank you very much,

Klaus

---

Von: Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 14:38:10 Uhr

[Klaus Kern]

Roger,

here you start YOUR fallacy:

Its the start of a Basic fallacy-

 

with the following assumptions

 

0x1 = 0

0x2 =0

 

the following must be true

 

0x1 = 0x2

 

i.e 0=0

 

then divide through by 0

 

(0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2

 

then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2

 

So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which is the problem; as I have said.

and here you have your big difficulties to map your just erroneous constructed fallacy to Special Relativity:

 

 with

x²+y²+z² - c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0

 

left hand side is

What exactly is the "left hand side" of this "double equation"?

maybe x²+y²+z²-c²t²=x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² ?????????????????? (or maybe not?)

 

x²+y²+z²=  c²t²  (1)

 

right hand side is

 

What exactly is the "right hand side" of this "double equation"?

maybe x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'²=0 ?????????????????????? (maybe not?)

 
x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)

but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not necessarily equal

What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is equal to eqn. (2)??

What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is not necessarily equal to eqn. (2)??
 

(1) reformulated yields:

x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1b)

(2) reformulated yields:

x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2b)

Nobody intelligent on this earth claims that the left hand sides of (1b) and (2b) are NOT equal.

 

so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal 2

 

1-1 = 2-2 =0

Oh yes, that's correct. And where exactly is the fallacy? And where exactly is the division by zero? And where is the unique link to SRT? Because if you have following eqs. as an arbitrary example

a = 5 (i)

and

b = 7 (ii)

then

a - 5 = 0 = b - 7

and what?

b - a = 7 - 5 = 2

still true, isn't it?

and even further:

b = a + 2

still true.

So, what is your problem?

Regards,

Klaus

 

 

 

[Pal Asija]

"they" have 0 =0

How about infinity = infinity

or even  0 = infinity

All these problems can be clarified and/or avoided altogether
by not mixing relative numbers with absolute numbers.

With best regards from Your P...@OurPal.com

--
With best regards from Your P...@OurPal.com
Pal Asija, B.Sc, GradIERE(Lond) PGD, MBA, PE, CDP JD ATM & CEO, OUR PAL LLC
Always at Your Service Always Helping you Achieve Your Objectives
7 Woonsocket Shelton CT 06484-5536 USA
001-203-924-9538 (Fax:9956) www.OurPal.com

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right spelling) being equal or identical to him.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000

[Hartwig Thim]

Klaus,
Roger said: t=t' so he wrote the two equations correctly: as they are:

x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0

And let me finally tell you the story why cats have three tails:
no cat has got two tails, one cat has got one tail. no cat + one cat = one cat,
so: one cat has got three tails
or special relativity makes two light flashes out of one. That's the real fallacy (of special relativity or the LTs).
Hartwig

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 19:25:08 +0000 (GMT)

--
Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

[Klaus Kern]

Hartwig,

that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You must brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.

Regards,

Klaus

---

Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 20:48:59 Uhr

[Klaus Kern]

Hartwig,

x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1)

and

x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2)

are true also for t not equal t'. You should think about your strategy. Your argumentation is inconsistent.

You can repeat your nonsense as many times you like, it remains still nonsense. There is only one light flash for each and any observer. Regardless of his/her inertial system. Harald has told you that several times. And I tell you as well.

Sincerely,

Klaus

---

Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 21:06:00 Uhr

[Hartwig Thim]

Santa Klaus (at least thousend years old),
your time has finished a week ago, now we are living in the New Year 2011, January.
Jump quickly into the running sled, otherwise you will miss it and you have to walk into heavens.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 20:08:03 +0000 (GMT)

--

Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

_______________________________________________

[Hartwig Thim]

Klaus,
read my NPA2010-paper again and again until you understand it. I can see
why it is difficult for Santa Klaus.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 20:18:42 +0000 (GMT)

[Roger Anderton]

Klaus,

 

What is supposed to be the problem you have with "setting them equal", are you just messing around?

 

we have as given: x²+y²+z²=c²t² (1)

 

 and

 

x'²+y'²+z'²=c²t² (2)

 

when (1) = (2) we have c²t² = c²t²  with t= t' +ve solution

 

Roger

----- Original Message -----

From: Klaus Kern

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

[Roger Anderton]

----- Original Message -----

From: Klaus Kern

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 7:25 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

Roger,

here you start YOUR fallacy:

 

 

 

-----------no, "the" fallacy; stop trying to pretend it something else. I am showing "the" fallacy that some people make.

 

 

Its the start of a Basic fallacy-

 

with the following assumptions

 

0x1 = 0

0x2 =0

 

the following must be true

 

0x1 = 0x2

 

i.e 0=0

 

then divide through by 0

 

(0/0)x1 = (0/0)x2

 

then falsely believing 0/0 =1 this gives 1 =2

 

So although 0 =0 is ok, its the type of mistake that it leads to which is the problem; as I have said.

and here you have your big difficulties to map your just erroneous constructed fallacy to Special Relativity:

 

 with

x²+y²+z² - c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0

 

left hand side is

What exactly is the "left hand side" of this "double equation"?

 

--- left hand side is x²+y²+z² - c²t² =0 that gives us x²+y²+z²=  c²t²  (1)

maybe x²+y²+z²-c²t²=x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² ?????????????????? (or maybe not?)

 

---- Exactly, maybe it isn't equal; but many SR texts give x²+y²+z² - c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0, and we are dealing with SR.

 

x²+y²+z²=  c²t²  (1)

 

right hand side is

 

What exactly is the "right hand side" of this "double equation"?

--- right hand side is x'²+y'²+z'²- c²t² =0  that gives us x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)

 

 

 

maybe x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'²=0 ?????????????????????? (maybe not?)

-- Exactly, but many SR texts give us that it is; and we are dealing with SR.

 

 
x'²+y'²+z'²= c²t² (2)

 

but we are supposedly considering case when (1) and (2) are not necessarily equal

What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is equal to eqn. (2)??

 

---no idea what you mean by "usual mathmatical terms", it means equation (1) = equation (2)

 

 

 

 

What exactly means (in usual mathematical terms) eqn. (1) is not necessarily equal to eqn. (2)??

 

 

--- ditto with "mathematical terms", it means equation (1) maybe equal to equation (2)

 

(1) reformulated yields:

x²+y²+z²-c²t² = 0 (1b)

(2) reformulated yields:

x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0 (2b)

Nobody intelligent on this earth claims that the left hand sides of (1b) and (2b) are NOT equal.

 

--- (1b) = (2b) =0, but that does not mean (1) = (2)

 

so effectively as one possibility (1) might equal 1 and (2) might equal 2

 

1-1 = 2-2 =0

Oh yes, that's correct.

 

 

 

-- good

 

And where exactly is the fallacy?

 

 

---the fallacy would then be to claim 1 =2

 

And where exactly is the division by zero?

 

 

 

-- going by 1-1 = 2-2 =0 and dividing through by 0, and believing the fallacy that 0/0 =1 then we have  0/0 x1 = 0/0 x 2;  all this I dealt with  earlier --- see beginning of email.

 

 

 

 

 

And where is the unique link to SRT? Because if you have following eqs. as an arbitrary example


a = 5 (i)

and

b = 7 (ii)

then

a - 5 = 0 = b - 7

and what?

b - a = 7 - 5 = 2

still true, isn't it?

 

--- that was not the math shown

and even further:

b = a + 2

still true.

So, what is your problem?

 

-- I have no problem. Its all clear to me.

 

 

[Dr.Rati Ram Sharma]

Roger, Hartwig & all others,

Identical means equal or same in all respects.

Rati Ram Sharma

[Dr.Rati Ram Sharma]

Klaus Kern,

Please avoid such language. Thanks.

Prof. Rati Ram Sharma

[Hartwig Thim]

Dear Professor Rati Sharma,
thank you, I hope, that Klaus Kern will be eductated in this respect.
I allow for him to take one full year 2011.
Best regards,

Hartwig Thim
-------- Original-Nachricht --------

> Datum: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 12:12:31 +0530
> Von: "Dr.Rati Ram Sharma" <rrjs...@gmail.com>

> An: membe...@worldnpa.org
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

> Roger, Hartwig & all others,

>
> Identical means equal or same in all respects.
>
> Rati Ram Sharma
>
>
> On 1/1/2011 9:45 PM, Roger Anderton wrote:
> > Hartwig
> > I think he is even more fundamentally confused, he thinks "identical"
> > and "equal" are different things. But as per on line dictionary:
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
> >
> >

> > Definition of /EQUAL/
> >
> > 1
> > /a //(1)/ *:* of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as
> > another /(2)/ *:* identical in mathematical value or logical
> > denotation *:* equivalent
> > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equivalent>

> > So he's gone off into his own little world.
> > Roger
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* Hartwig Thim <mailto:super...@gmx.at>
> > *To:* NPA Members Chat Email <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 01, 2011 4:11 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

> >
> > Roger,
> > thank you. "this gives 1 = 2" will convince him. There is another
> > example with cats and their tails. Klaus Kern must have heard that
> > in school.
> > Hartwig
> > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 15:38:35 -0000
> > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com

> > <mailto:r.j.an...@btinternet.com>>

> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at <mailto:super...@gmx.at>>

> > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 15:38:47 Uhr
> > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > >
> > > Klaus,
> > > there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you
> > equate them
> > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6
> > potatoes is
> > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6
> > potatoes is not
> > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² =
> x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² is
> > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from
> > them thereby
> > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer
> > measuring light
> > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and
> > O' if only
> > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong.
> > > Hartwig
> > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
> > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2...@googlemail.com

> > <mailto:fb557ec2...@googlemail.com>>

> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at <mailto:super...@gmx.at>>

> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 12:25:03 Uhr
> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > >
> > > > Roger,
> > > > yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have
> > told me
> > > that
> > > > 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is yielding the
> big
> > > > catastrophy,
> > > > called "Special Relativity".
> > > > Hartwig
> > > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:06:51 -0000
> > > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com

> > <mailto:r.j.an...@btinternet.com>>

> > > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > >
> > > > > Its what "they" do with the equation next thats nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > "they" have 0 =0
> > > > >
> > > > > and do nonsense like divide both sides by 0 and think they
> > have 1=1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Hartwig Thim
> > > > > To: NPA Members Chat Email
> > > > > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:08 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Glird,
> > > > > but the more critical mistake is that the equation is
> logically
> > > wrong:
> > > > > x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0. This is
> > > impossible!
> > > > And
> > > > > kills special relativity.
> > > > > Happy New Year!
> > > > > Hartwig Thim
> > > > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > > > Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:37:43 -0500 (EST)

> > > > > > Von: Glird <gl...@aol.com <mailto:gl...@aol.com>>
> > > > > > An: membe...@worldnpa.org
> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Message: 1
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:34:19 +0100

> > > > > > From: "Laski" <la...@autocom.pl <mailto:la...@autocom.pl>>

> > > > > > To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> > <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] John, Attached Please find the
> Better
> > > > Version
> > > > > > of the Exercises
> > > > > > Message-ID:
> > <60E8508EE9534ACDB2D2872C4CD4660D@xhqx443ro87wzr

> > <mailto:60E8508EE9534ACDB2D2872C4CD4660D@xhqx443ro87wzr>>

> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Byouhgha and All,
> > > > > > > I fully agree that LT formulae refer to the
> one-dimensional
> > > case
> > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can y = y' and z = z' couple with x = (x' - vt)/q to
> > be only
> > > one
> > > > > > dimension?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > glird
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *******************************************
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> > > > > Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > MembersChat mailing list

> > > > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
> > > > gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > MembersChat mailing list

> > > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
> > > gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MembersChat mailing list

> > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > MembersChat mailing list

> > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> >
> > --
> > NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> > Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MembersChat mailing list

> > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > MembersChat mailing list
> > Membe...@worldnpa.org
> > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>

--

Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

_______________________________________________

[Klaus Kern]

Prof. Dr. Rati Ram Sharma,

Hartwig called me a dwarf:
-------------------------

Roger,
he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (...) being equal or identical to him.

-------------------------
So I thought it's this type of language which is favored here. At least by Hartwig.

Klaus

PS.: Talking about language: What does it mean you are "infiltrated by Einstein believers"? Is this some sort of cult or sect here, which can be infiltrated? Aren't you interested in open discussions?

---

Von: Dr.Rati Ram Sharma <rrjs...@gmail.com>
An: membe...@worldnpa.org

Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 7:50:11 Uhr

[Hartwig Thim]

Santa Klaus,
you have started using impolite words like:

> You must brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old
> man.

Something like that always happens when no more good arguments are available.
Klaus Kern is not looking for the truth, he is just a trouble maker of the kind, we do not like inside of NPA.
Hartwig

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 11:11:57 +0000 (GMT)

--

Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

_______________________________________________

[Roger Anderton]

Exactly, Einstein believers make absurd claims and when its pointed out they are being absurd, they feel insulted.

[Stephan Gift]

Klaus,
I support Prof Sharma's request.
Stephan Gift

-----Original Message-----
From: membersch...@worldnpa.org on behalf of Dr.Rati Ram Sharma
Sent: Sun 1/2/2011 2:50 AM
To: membe...@worldnpa.org
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

Klaus Kern,

Please avoid such language. Thanks.

Prof. Rati Ram Sharma


On 1/2/2011 1:38 AM, Klaus Kern wrote:
> Hartwig,
>
> that means, you don't know the basic maths, too. Bad for you. You must
> brush up them quickly. You are running out of time, old man.
>
> Regards,
>
> Klaus
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Von:* Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at>
> *An:* NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 20:48:59 Uhr
> *Betreff:* Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

>
> Roger,
> he seems to enjoy living in his own little world, he may meet there
> the 7 dwarfs, the youngster (Dopey, or Doppy, I forgot the right
> spelling) being equal or identical to him.
> Hartwig
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 16:15:27 -0000
> > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com

> <mailto:r.j.an...@btinternet.com>>

> > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> <mailto:r.j.an...@btinternet.com>>

> > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > >  Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at <mailto:super...@gmx.at>>

> > >  An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > >  Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 15:38:47 Uhr
> > >  Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > >
> > >  Klaus,
> > >  there are many expressions having a zero on one side. If you equate
> > them
> > > yields nothing: 5 oranges - 5 oranges is zero. 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes
> > is
> > > zero. The equation: 5 oranges - 5 oranges = 6 potatoes - 6 potatoes is
> > not
> > > getting you anywhere. Or: x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'²
> > is
> > > not only useless, it is misleading. The LTs are following from them
> > thereby
> > > predicting an illogical situation for an electrical engineer measuring
> > light
> > > flashes at O and O'. You cannot have two light flashes in O and O' if
> > only
> > > one in S at O has been generated. Your explanation below is wrong.
> > >  Hartwig
> > >  -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 13:06:13 +0000 (GMT)
> > > > Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2...@googlemail.com

> <mailto:fb557ec2...@googlemail.com>>

> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > Von: Hartwig Thim <super...@gmx.at <mailto:super...@gmx.at>>

> > > > An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > Gesendet: Samstag, den 1. Januar 2011, 12:25:03 Uhr
> > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > >
> > > > Roger,
> > > > yes, that is the big mistake. Excellent mathematicians have told
> > me
> > > that
> > > > 0 = 0 must not be done, and then dividing by 0 is yielding the big
> > > > catastrophy,
> > > > called "Special Relativity".
> > > > Hartwig
> > > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > > Datum: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 11:06:51 -0000
> > > > > Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com

> <mailto:r.j.an...@btinternet.com>>

> > > > > An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > >
> > > > > Its what "they" do with the equation next thats nonsense.
> > > > >
> > > > > "they" have 0 =0
> > > > >
> > > > > and do nonsense like divide both sides by 0 and think they have
> > 1=1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >  From: Hartwig Thim
> > > > >  To: NPA Members Chat Email
> > > > >  Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 6:08 PM
> > > > >  Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Dear Glird,
> > > > >  but the more critical mistake is that the equation is logically
> > > wrong:
> > > > >  x²+y²+z²-c²t² = x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = 0. This is
> > > impossible!
> > > > And
> > > > > kills special relativity.
> > > > >  Happy New Year!
> > > > >  Hartwig Thim
> > > > >  -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > > > > > Datum: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:37:43 -0500 (EST)

> > > > > > Von: Glird <gl...@aol.com <mailto:gl...@aol.com>>

> > > > > > An: membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > > > Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Message: 1
> > > > > > Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:34:19 +0100

> > > > > > From: "Laski" <la...@autocom.pl <mailto:la...@autocom.pl>>

> > > > > > To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org

> <mailto:membe...@worldnpa.org>>

> > > > > > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] John, Attached Please find the Better
> > > > Version
> > > > > > of the Exercises
> > > > > > Message-ID: <60E8508EE9534ACDB2D2872C4CD4660D@xhqx443ro87wzr>
> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Byouhgha and All,
> > > > > > > I fully agree that LT formulae refer to the one-dimensional
> > > case
> > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can y = y' and z = z' couple with x = (x' - vt)/q to be
> > only
> > > one
> > > > > > dimension?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > glird
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *******************************************
> > > > >
> > > > >  --
> > > > >  NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> > > > >  Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
> > > > >
> > > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > > >  MembersChat mailing list

> > > > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
> > > > gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > MembersChat mailing list

> > > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >  --
> > >  GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 Euro/mtl.! Jetzt mit
> > >  gratis Handy-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  MembersChat mailing list

> > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  MembersChat mailing list

> > > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
> >
> >  --
> >  NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> >  Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  MembersChat mailing list

> > Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
> --
> NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen!
> Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list

> Membe...@worldnpa.org <mailto:Membe...@worldnpa.org>

> http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> Membe...@worldnpa.org
> http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.

[Klaus Kern]

Stephan,

I support Prof. Sharma's request too.

Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was the first using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.

So, why is everybody blaming me?

Klaus

---

Von: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>; membe...@worldnpa.org
Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr

[Roger Anderton]

 

>>>>>Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.

That was rather sensitive of you

 

sensitive - defined option 4 from: http://www.answers.com/topic/sensitive- quick to take offence

 

And a misinterpretation by you of what was said.

 

Roger

 

 

[Hartwig Thim]

Dear friends,
Well, if somebody would call me a dwarf, that would be a compliment for me as I am 6.3feet (190cm) tall. And is it really an insult, calling people living in a little world (among dwarfs and snowwhite) dwarfs?
O.K. this discussion was good for Sylvester, but that last day of 2010 now belongs to the past. But isn't it quite a good sign that we can have fun like little boys in elementary school? In times when people are killed by earthquakes and soldiers?
So let's get serious again, I ask everybody to forgive me, and I appologize
for my stupid words. I wish everybody a Happy New Year, Health, lot's of luck and success! Warmest regards,
Hartwig

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:20:41 +0000 (GMT)
> Von: Klaus Kern <fb557ec2...@googlemail.com>

> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

> Stephan,
>
> I support Prof. Sharma's request too.
>
> Look at the mail history below and you will find, that Hartwig was the
> first
> using impolite words. Maybe you like to be called a dwarf. I don't.
>
> So, why is everybody blaming me?
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>;
> membe...@worldnpa.org
> Gesendet: Sonntag, den 2. Januar 2011, 13:57:10 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1
>

> RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

--

Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser -
jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser

_______________________________________________

[Roger Anderton]

Happy  New Year to you Hartwig and everyone else

 

As far as I am concerned there was nothing that needed forgiving.

 

As far as Einstein's relativity is concerned -- it is absurd nonsense and cannot be taken seriously. That turns out to be its perfect defence mechanism -- it destroys all possibility of serious debate because of its silliness.

 

And the fact that it can be demonstrated as silly upsets the Einstein believers, who instead of realising it is silly (as anyone sensible and rational should realise) decide instead to take offence.

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
I am never sure whether I should forgive even myself for something I have done. So I am choosing the safe way and create peace for me by forgiving all, even myself.

As far as SR is concerned there is no doubt that it is completely wrong.
So I will continue trying to save the world from being misguided. I am very thankful to you and to all other friends supporting this idea. It is a good feeling to act as a samariter. I enjoy it. And we will eventually succeed. Maybe already in 2011.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 16:32:31 -0000
> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>

--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief!
Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail

[Stephan Gift]

Happy new year to you too Hartwig and everyone.
Stephan

[Stephan Gift]

Dear Roger,
While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does, if we are to succeed in our efforts in the npa to change the space-time paradigm, we must continue in our efforts to demonstrate the theory's invalidity both theoretically and experimentally. This is why I continue in these discussions; to try to arrive at consensus as to what is right and what is wrong. Open-minded debate is essential for this and this is what I hoipe for as we enter the new year.
Regards
Stephan

[Roger Anderton]

>>>While I agree entirely that relativity is wrong, it is very unwise to not take it seriously. Since the entire (almost) scientific community does,

 

Historically it didn't. The scientific community could not reach an agreement on Einstein's relativity; there was a big split in opinions; proper debate to sort out differences of opinion was not allowed. The Nobel committee did not trust Einstein's relativity and did not award a prize for it. 

 

Its all just been propaganda campaign for Einstein's Relativity -- and nothing to do with science; waiting for opponents to die; and indoctrinating new generations with propaganda and suppressing the historical fact of the controversy of not being able to understand what Einstein's relativity meant.

 

Bowing to the demands of the propaganda to take it seriously is just going along with the LIES. (When you watch an advert for a product on television; you don't believe it- I hope. Same for the advert for Einstein.)

 

Submit to the LIES and you are just allowing the Einstein believers - the High Ground - and you are not facing their understanding of Einstein's relativity; instead you are facing their numerous different misunderstandings of relativity. You are not facing a coherent theory despite  what the advert says.

 

below from: http://knol.google.com/k/did-einstein-not-understand-math#

 

Nobody Understands, Nobody Even Claims to Understand

 

But relativity theory is very difficult, you say,  and my brains are not sharp enough to make it possible to say anything sensible about this subject. Don't panic, you are in good company, because not even expert physicists claim to understand:

 

• Many people probably felt relieved when told that the true nature of the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. They had tried to understand science, but now it was evident that science was something to believe in, not something which should be understood. (Hannes Alfven Physics Nobel Laureate 1970)
• The relativity of space and time is a startling conclusion. I have known it for more than 25 year, but even so, whenever I quietly sit and think it through, I am amazed... It is not the depth of mathematics that makes Einstein’s relativity challenging. It is the degree to which the ideas are foreign and apparently inconsistent with our everyday experience. (Brian Greene in the Fabric of Cosmos) 

• People are applauding me because everybody understands what I say, and you because nobody understands what you say. (Chaplin to Einstein) 
• Why is it that nobody understands me, and everybody likes me? (Einstein in New York Times 1944)
• ... the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent. Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even Einstein himself. (Synge) 
• I myself can hardly understand Laue's book. (Einstein about the first text book on special relativity 1914) 

• Thus we can sum up: general relativity can not be physical, and physical relativity is not general. (Fock)
• Scientific American once ran a competition offering several thousand dollars for the best explanation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity in three thousand words. “I am the only one in my entire circle of friends who is not entering,” Einstein ruefully remarked. “I don’t believe I could do it”.
• Einstein, my upset stomach hates your theory [of General Relativity]—it almost hates you yourself! How am I to' provide for my students? What am I to answer to the philosophers?!! (Paul Ehrenfest)
• The general public looked upon relativity as indicative of the seemingly incomprehensible modern era, educated scientists despaired of ever understanding what Einstein had done, and political ideologues used the new theory to exploit public fears and anxieties—all of which opened a rift between science and the broader culture that continues to expand today. (David Cassidy)

http://knol.google.com/k/did-einstein-not-understand-math#

 

  

 

 

[Hartwig Thim]

Stephan,
thank you for your wishes. Every year on January 1st, I am making the decision to make much better use of every second of the new year and get important things done. One of the things I will concentrate on in 2011 is the one-way speed of light measurement. SR is built on light speed isotropy in inertial frames, but many main stream physicists do not realize that there is no experimental proof of the isotropy. You have described this problem in many previous emails but it has been more or less ignored.
So let's see whether advocates of SR can tell us the experiments which have prooven light speed isotropy. The Jupiter experiment of Roemer is one particularly interesting case in this respect.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 18:48:43 -0400
> Von: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
> An: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>, NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
yes, how right you are. We have to treat this problem very seriously. I always did, but occasionally a joke or a fairy tail such as snowwhite and the seven dwarfs came into my mind, but I will stop that from now on and
certainly in the New Year 2011. In another email I wrote that I have made
good plans for 2011 and concentrate on refuting SR more clearly.
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:29:22 -0000
> Von: "Roger Anderton" <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>

> An: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Betreff: Re: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1

> RE: [NPA Chat] MembersChat Digest, Vol 916, Issue 1>>>While I agree

> a.. Many people probably felt relieved when told that the true nature of

> the world could not be understood except by Einstein and a few other
> geniuses who were able to think in four dimensions. They had tried to understand
> science, but now it was evident that science was something to believe in,
> not something which should be understood. (Hannes Alfven Physics Nobel
> Laureate 1970)

> b.. The relativity of space and time is a startling conclusion. I have

> known it for more than 25 year, but even so, whenever I quietly sit and
> think it through, I am amazed... It is not the depth of mathematics that makes
> Einstein's relativity challenging. It is the degree to which the ideas are
> foreign and apparently inconsistent with our everyday experience. (Brian
> Greene in the Fabric of Cosmos)

> a.. People are applauding me because everybody understands what I say,

> and you because nobody understands what you say. (Chaplin to Einstein)

> b.. Why is it that nobody understands me, and everybody likes me?

> (Einstein in New York Times 1944)

> c.. ... the general theory of relativity. The name is repellent.

> Relativity? I have never been able to understand what the word means in this
> connection. I used to think that this was my fault, some flaw of my
> intelligence, but it is now apparent that nobody ever understood it, probably not even
> Einstein himself. (Synge)

> d.. I myself can hardly understand Laue's book. (Einstein about the

> first text book on special relativity 1914)

> a.. Thus we can sum up: general relativity can not be physical, and

> physical relativity is not general. (Fock)

> b.. Scientific American once ran a competition offering several thousand

> dollars for the best explanation of Einstein's general theory of
> relativity in three thousand words. "I am the only one in my entire circle of
> friends who is not entering," Einstein ruefully remarked. "I don't believe I
> could do it".

> c.. Einstein, my upset stomach hates your theory [of General
> Relativity]-it almost hates you yourself! How am I to' provide for my students? What

> am I to answer to the philosophers?!! (Paul Ehrenfest)

> d.. The general public looked upon relativity as indicative of the

> seemingly incomprehensible modern era, educated scientists despaired of ever
> understanding what Einstein had done, and political ideologues used the new

> theory to exploit public fears and anxieties-all of which opened a rift

> http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[carl littmann]

Yes, ditto, Happy new year, (and thanks, all, for helpful and thought-provoking notes.)

 

             Carl  L

[Dr.Rati Ram Sharma]

Dear Roger, Stephan, Klaus and other friends at NPA-Chat,

I agree with Roger that SR is wrong,  I also agree with Stephan that we should take SR seriously and prove it wrong to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.  I have been working on these lines since 1990 when I published my fist book UNIFIED PHYSICAL THEORY (COSMO, New Delhi). It was updated in the 2002-book: Realistic Foundations of PHYSICS & COSMOLOGY (Abhishek, Chandigarh),  the 2010-book  THE UNIFIED THEORY, A complete paradigm shift in PHYSICS & COSMOLOGY (Lulu, USA/UK), the paper :Unified Theory Replaces Relativity Theories, published in the Proceedings of the  NPA-17 Conference and the paper : Unified Theory & Relativity Imbroglio submitted to the NPA-18 conference.

Klaus may please note that variability (K. Scharnhorst, Phys.Lett.B 286 (1990) 354), nay even superluminality (L. J. Wang, A. Kuzmich & A. Dogariu, Nature 406 (2000) 277) of light velocity have been experimentally established.

I request all NPA friends to refer to my latest paper for NPA-18 conference. Thanks & regards from
Prof Rati Ram Sharma.

UNIFIED THEORY & RELATIVITY IMBROGLIO
ABSTRACT: Light wave exists in, and is composed by, its propagating medium. In Unified Theory it is the all-composing and all-pervading ‘sharmon medium’ composed by the new particle ‘sharmon’. Einstein erred by discarding the physical medium for light-wave.  Space and time are NOT substantive entities but abstract concepts evolving from our life-long perceptions of successive ‘there, here, there’ and ‘then, now, then’ all arising from the successive motions and changes in the surrounding objects. The abstract concepts of space and time cannot fuse into any tangible concrete ‘spacetime’ continuum. All multi-dimensional spacetime continua are mathematical constructs bereft of physical existence. Einstein further erred by introducing the non-existent 4-dimensional spacetime continuum to propagate light and gravitation. ‘Origin’ of light wave is not the source but   sharmon-medium’s first 0-spin sharmon which receives energy quantum from the source and rises to its 1-spin state. Similarly, ‘terminus’ of light wave is not the target but the last 1-spin sharmon which transfers energy quantum to the target and itself returns to 0-spin state. Creative beginning at the origin and vanishing end at the terminus makes velocity of light-wave invariant to the motions of source and target. From origin to terminus light moves as a wave-quantum unity via 1-spin sharmons which do not physically move. Actually observed light velocity is not only constant c = (e_o.µ_o)^-1/2 and invariant to the velocities of the source and/or the target relative to the sharmon medium but also locally variable, nay superluminal, which invalidate the two founding postulates of Special Relativity but are explained by Unified Theory. Propagation of light is an absolute motion as it is not relative even to the motions of the source and target; and sharmon medium is an absolute reference frame. The light velocity c becomes (c -/+ v) for the observer moving at a velocity (+/-v) relative to the sharmon medium, ruling out constancy of light velocity c over the inertial frames.  Since the velocity of a body cannot vary (like v) with and be invariant (like c) to, the source-target velocity at the same time, the Lorentz transforms do not describe any real motion in Nature. Thence deduced ‘contraction of space’ and ‘dilation of time’ are unrealistic demands on Nature to change to fit their mathematics. Bending of light in a gravitational field follows in Unified Theory with photon having mass as in General Relativity without curving the 4-D spacetime.

[Roger Anderton]

 

Hartwig

 

>>>So I will continue trying to save the world from being misguided.

 

There are lots of people with different beliefs, all going in different directions. What we have is the problem with the Einstein believers who appear to have taken over physics.

 

With Einstein he was ambiguous and kept changing his mind, that makes him a perfect idol for some people because they can read their different beliefs into him. The "older Einstein" decided the "young Einstein" was wrong on many issues, but the Einstein believers in general ignore that and go by the "young Einstein."

 

"Young Einstein" supposedly formed SR based upon relativity + lightspeed constancy.

 

When it comes to the opposition against "young Einstein" there is just too much difference of opinion. Some oppose both these ideas, some oppose one idea and not the other, and some just want reinterpretation of the ideas.

[Hartwig Thim]

Roger,
yes, in different books on relativity one finds different derivations and
conclusions. Some are even saying that Lorentz aether theory and srt are identical. It's a big mess and, hence, srt should be trashed by global action
Hartwig
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:07:18 -0000

http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org