Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
sci.physics.relativity
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Are *observed* SR effects real?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
paparios@gmail.com  
View profile  
 More options Jul 11 2008, 12:22 pm
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jul 11 2008 12:22 pm
Subject: Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 11 jul, 11:49, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> On Jul 11, 11:32 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> > So they are talking philosophy there not physics...

> I would hope so.

> Beacuse your favorite fairytail is physically
> and mathematically absurd.

> << special relativity
> was always a provisional theory with recognized
> epistemological short-comings. As mentioned above,
> one of Einstein's two main two reasons for
> abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework
> for physics was the fact that, no less than
> Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based
> on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical
> assumption of a preferred class of reference frames,
> precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox.

> Today the "special theory" exists only
> (aside from its historical importance) as a
> convenient set of widely applicable formulas
> for important limiting cases of the general
> theory, but the phenomenological justification
> for those formulas can only be found in the
> general theory.>>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

> > Miguel Rios

We don't know who wrote that "Reflections on Relativity" book you
quote (somewhere in the internet Kevin Brown is mentioned as its
author and he is cited in http://home.att.net/~numericana/fame/) but
in its preface it says:

"This book examines the evolution of the principle of relativity in
its classical, special, and general incarnations, both from a
technical and a historical perspective, with the aim of showing how it
has repeatedly inspired advances in our understanding of the physical
world."

It seems to me that this book is also explaining Einstein theories
rather than debunking them.

You should read the entire book instead of just quoting some words
that suit your agenda...
But, for sure, that is precisely your agenda right?

Miguel Rios


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google