Enilno
2009-08-18 14:01:26 UTC
"The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity"
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the Lorentz
Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between"The Conflict Between
Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two fundamental
theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the very
large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two theories
just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided predictions
of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two, the
validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of its
predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more akin
to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development of
superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA, can
lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been in
one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of the
predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's gravitational
field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present, can
become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to obtain
precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring around a
neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of such
second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
"curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
(cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is not
curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where its
derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one finds an
interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT system
of units one finds the transformations:
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force 1 1
Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1
Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
Where 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5, and (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2)) are equal to (c/C).
General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
Until this degree of freedom re3presented by
"curved space" was added, Dr. Einstein found it impossible to solve the
mathematical equations involved.
If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to find
the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble to
look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
expression:<BR><BR>(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant term,
Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect of
the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
coefficient is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence. If a
term, Kl, were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would since
the solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential error
exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as every
undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the non-Euclidean of
Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to a
solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the mathematics,
but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
relativity as a base.
The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a
transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for Length,
is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force 1 1
Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1/(1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved and its
transfornation may be ignored. The revision would not be viable if it were
not consistent with the results of observation and if it were not consistent
with other means of derivation.
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. One must recognize that the
observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made in
the Sun's gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to
make a determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid, but
the revised theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the source
of gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I was
surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
reference frames having a relative velocity. What is too often not
recognized that, in so doing, it provides the transformations for all other
physical quantities! These remaining transformations may be determined by
applying the conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
equations.
Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time required to
traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity must equal the
Lorentz Transformation for Length [1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
Transformation for Time [(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz Transformation for
Velocity is therefore equal to 1/(1-V^2/C^2). (As incredible as it may seem,
the writer has received a communication from an individual who asserts that
a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined by dividing the
Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for
Time even though velocity is defined as length divided by time! I suspect
that this individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining the
intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in the wrong line of
work, I understand
that Walmart is hiring.)
This transformation yields a conclusion which is in conflict with the
current understanding of Special Relativity. Present dogma asserts that the
velocity of light is the same in all velocity reference frames. If one
considers two reference frames, A and B, moving at a relativity velocity V
with respect to each other, one finds that an observer in A measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as its conventional value of C
and the velocity of light in B as having been reduced by the Lorentz
Transformation for Velocity. Similarly, an observer in B measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as C and the velocity of light
in A as having been reduced by the Lorentz Transformation for velocity.
While superficially this may seem to be a contradiction, the difficulty
vanishes when one factors in the effects of the limit on the velocity of
information transfer imposed by the velocity of light.
We are forced to accept the conclusion, however, that the velocity of
light changes as a result of a change in velocity and that this change in
velocity is concealed by a change in the size of the units of measurement
for velocity (length/time) making it appear that the velocity of light is
the same in both reference frames. In terms of unchanging units of
measurement, the velocity of light does differ between reference frames
which differ in velocity, it only appears to be unchanged when it is
measured within each reference frame. It may be stated, therefore, that
Special Relativity requires that the velocity of light be a "constant" but
cannot be constant between reference frames having a relative velocity. This
conclusion is consistent with the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory which
asserts that our velocity with respect to the Aether is indeterminate.
However, one may derive more information from Special Relativity.
Consider two velocity reference frames, for example Earth and Mars. (See
Loading Image...
.) A rocket is located on Earth and three
identical clocks are in use. One clock is located on Earth, one is located
in the rocket, and the third clock is located on Mars. The observer on Earth
and the observer in the rocket report that their clocks run at the same
speed and that the clock on Mars runs slower due to the relative velocity
between the two locations. The observer on Mars reports that the clocks on
the Earth and on the rocket run slower than his clock.
After the readings have been taken, the rocket takes off and travels to
Mars and stops there. The observer on Earth notes that the speed of the
clock on the rocket has slowed to the speed of the clock on Mars while the
observer on Mars notes that the speed of the clock on the rocket has
increased to match the speed of his own clock which is faster than the speed
of the clock on the Earth. The observer on the rocket does not notice a
change in the speed of his clock, but since he is familiar with Special
Relativity knows that the speed of his clock has changed as a result of his
observed change in velocity but that he cannot observe that change in the
speed of his clock. He observes that the change in velocity of his rocket
has occurred and that the speed of the clock on the Earth has appeared to
slow and the speed of the clock on Mars has appeared to increase. This
observation does not bother him or the other observers since all are
familiar with Special Relativity.
Consider what this thought experiment has shown. It has shown that not
only is it impossible to measure our velocity with respect to the Aether and
hence it is impossible to assert that the Aether does not exist, It has also
shown that Special Relativity requires that there be an absolute velocity
reference frame (i.e.- the Aether). In the Rocket Experiment all three
observers report that the speed of the clock has changed as a result of the
change in the rockets velocity. The observer on Earth asserts that the speed
of the clock on the rocket has slowed, the observer on Mars asserts that the
speed of the clock on the rocket has increased, and the observer on the
rocket asserts that the speed of his clock has changed but that he cannot
observe that change. There is one item of information that all three
observers agree on. The speed of
the clock on the rocket changed as a result of the change in the rocket's
velocity.
One event, the change in speed of the rocket, has caused the speed of
the clock on the rocket to change. Since there was only one causal event,
there can only be one result, the speed of the clock must actually increase
or decrease, it cannot do both! In order for that conclusion to be true,
there must be an absolute reference frame for velocity. The classical
Aether, which cannot be proven not to exist, must exist!
Two objections have been raised to this argument. The first is that it
involves acceleration and Special relativity does not include the effect of
acceleration. This argument is meaningless since no acceleration occurred
when observations were being made. The second argument involves the speed of
communication between the Earth and Mars. This is a foolish argument since
the observations were all made prior to the start and after the finish of
the experiment. The observers could have communicated by pony express
without affecting the conclusions. NOT ONLY DID SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOT
ELIMINATE THE CLASSICAL AETHER, IT REQUIRES THAT THE CLASSICAL AETHER EXIST!
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
It is recognized that Special Relativity provides the Lorentz
Transformations for Length and Time and Mass between"The Conflict Between
Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
(See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two fundamental
theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the very
large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two theories
just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided predictions
of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two, the
validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of its
predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more akin
to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development of
superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA, can
lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been in
one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of the
predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's gravitational
field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present, can
become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to obtain
precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring around a
neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of such
second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
"curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
(cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is not
curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where its
derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one finds an
interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT system
of units one finds the transformations:
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force 1 1
Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1
Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
Where 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5, and (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2)) are equal to (c/C).
General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
Until this degree of freedom re3presented by
"curved space" was added, Dr. Einstein found it impossible to solve the
mathematical equations involved.
If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to find
the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble to
look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
expression:<BR><BR>(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant term,
Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect of
the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
coefficient is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence. If a
term, Kl, were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would since
the solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential error
exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as every
undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the non-Euclidean of
Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to a
solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the mathematics,
but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
relativity as a base.
The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a
transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for Length,
is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force 1 1
Length 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 1/(1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
Time (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 (1-G*M*L/(R2*C2))
With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved and its
transfornation may be ignored. The revision would not be viable if it were
not consistent with the results of observation and if it were not consistent
with other means of derivation.
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm. One must recognize that the
observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made in
the Sun's gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to
make a determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid, but
the revised theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the source
of gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I was
surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
reference frames having a relative velocity. What is too often not
recognized that, in so doing, it provides the transformations for all other
physical quantities! These remaining transformations may be determined by
applying the conventional Lorentz Transformations to accepted physical
equations.
Since a velocity is equal to a length divided by the time required to
traverse that length, the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity must equal the
Lorentz Transformation for Length [1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5] divided by the Lorentz
Transformation for Time [(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5]. The Lorentz Transformation for
Velocity is therefore equal to 1/(1-V^2/C^2). (As incredible as it may seem,
the writer has received a communication from an individual who asserts that
a Lorentz Transformation for Velocity cannot be determined by dividing the
Lorentz Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for
Time even though velocity is defined as length divided by time! I suspect
that this individual is a PhD who has a vested interest in maintaining the
intellectual status quo. If he is a physicist he is in the wrong line of
work, I understand
that Walmart is hiring.)
This transformation yields a conclusion which is in conflict with the
current understanding of Special Relativity. Present dogma asserts that the
velocity of light is the same in all velocity reference frames. If one
considers two reference frames, A and B, moving at a relativity velocity V
with respect to each other, one finds that an observer in A measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as its conventional value of C
and the velocity of light in B as having been reduced by the Lorentz
Transformation for Velocity. Similarly, an observer in B measures the
velocity of light in his own reference frame as C and the velocity of light
in A as having been reduced by the Lorentz Transformation for velocity.
While superficially this may seem to be a contradiction, the difficulty
vanishes when one factors in the effects of the limit on the velocity of
information transfer imposed by the velocity of light.
We are forced to accept the conclusion, however, that the velocity of
light changes as a result of a change in velocity and that this change in
velocity is concealed by a change in the size of the units of measurement
for velocity (length/time) making it appear that the velocity of light is
the same in both reference frames. In terms of unchanging units of
measurement, the velocity of light does differ between reference frames
which differ in velocity, it only appears to be unchanged when it is
measured within each reference frame. It may be stated, therefore, that
Special Relativity requires that the velocity of light be a "constant" but
cannot be constant between reference frames having a relative velocity. This
conclusion is consistent with the Lorentz Transformation Aether Theory which
asserts that our velocity with respect to the Aether is indeterminate.
However, one may derive more information from Special Relativity.
Consider two velocity reference frames, for example Earth and Mars. (See
Loading Image...
.) A rocket is located on Earth and threeidentical clocks are in use. One clock is located on Earth, one is located
in the rocket, and the third clock is located on Mars. The observer on Earth
and the observer in the rocket report that their clocks run at the same
speed and that the clock on Mars runs slower due to the relative velocity
between the two locations. The observer on Mars reports that the clocks on
the Earth and on the rocket run slower than his clock.
After the readings have been taken, the rocket takes off and travels to
Mars and stops there. The observer on Earth notes that the speed of the
clock on the rocket has slowed to the speed of the clock on Mars while the
observer on Mars notes that the speed of the clock on the rocket has
increased to match the speed of his own clock which is faster than the speed
of the clock on the Earth. The observer on the rocket does not notice a
change in the speed of his clock, but since he is familiar with Special
Relativity knows that the speed of his clock has changed as a result of his
observed change in velocity but that he cannot observe that change in the
speed of his clock. He observes that the change in velocity of his rocket
has occurred and that the speed of the clock on the Earth has appeared to
slow and the speed of the clock on Mars has appeared to increase. This
observation does not bother him or the other observers since all are
familiar with Special Relativity.
Consider what this thought experiment has shown. It has shown that not
only is it impossible to measure our velocity with respect to the Aether and
hence it is impossible to assert that the Aether does not exist, It has also
shown that Special Relativity requires that there be an absolute velocity
reference frame (i.e.- the Aether). In the Rocket Experiment all three
observers report that the speed of the clock has changed as a result of the
change in the rockets velocity. The observer on Earth asserts that the speed
of the clock on the rocket has slowed, the observer on Mars asserts that the
speed of the clock on the rocket has increased, and the observer on the
rocket asserts that the speed of his clock has changed but that he cannot
observe that change. There is one item of information that all three
observers agree on. The speed of
the clock on the rocket changed as a result of the change in the rocket's
velocity.
One event, the change in speed of the rocket, has caused the speed of
the clock on the rocket to change. Since there was only one causal event,
there can only be one result, the speed of the clock must actually increase
or decrease, it cannot do both! In order for that conclusion to be true,
there must be an absolute reference frame for velocity. The classical
Aether, which cannot be proven not to exist, must exist!
Two objections have been raised to this argument. The first is that it
involves acceleration and Special relativity does not include the effect of
acceleration. This argument is meaningless since no acceleration occurred
when observations were being made. The second argument involves the speed of
communication between the Earth and Mars. This is a foolish argument since
the observations were all made prior to the start and after the finish of
the experiment. The observers could have communicated by pony express
without affecting the conclusions. NOT ONLY DID SPECIAL RELATIVITY NOT
ELIMINATE THE CLASSICAL AETHER, IT REQUIRES THAT THE CLASSICAL AETHER EXIST!
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.