Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<XeoMb.6036$zj7.3988@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> 
> > Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:<A_IKb.40467$Pg1.19800@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> >> Harry wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net...
> >> >> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> >> >> > > news:a42650fc.0401041424.31edb781@posting.google.com...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > [snip
> >> >> > >
Dear Russ, I understand well your difficulties in trying to sort out
these idle-walking symbols of relativistic utopia. But I have to
distress you recalling that mathematical symbols are not the physics
yet. Think yourself: when studying tensor calculus, you naturally
studied also algebras and know, the formalisms of algebras (fields,
rings, groups, semigroups etc.) differ mainly in admissible operators
for operation on some sets. If you add or omit an operator, change or
limit its function, you will yield a new algebra. The main aim is to
provide the closed cycle of transformation. With it both previous and
new algebra are fully correct in frames of given transformations.
Which is false? In frames of mathematics both are equally correct!
This is the property of mathematics: what you gave in the statement
that you yielded. But what namely have we to give in the statement,
relativists try to hide, as just in phenomenology of physical
processes are their principal problems.

You are saying,

>All of Einstein's work reduces to Newton for relative velocities <<
C.

Not so. First Einstein removed the Newton's absolute space, made this
space empty, and only then, on these grounds, he introduced constant
velocity of light in all frames. With these "innovations" Newton's
mechanics fully stops its validity, as all three its laws are
violated. And new Einstein's "mechanics" didn't substitute Newton's
mechanics. To understand, try to calculate with this "mechanics" the
motion of body in non-inertial frame. ;-) You will yield a full absurd
that contradicts even the postulates of that theory. This is why all
relativists bashfully confine themselves to the most trivial problems
and 1D motion. Though, in particular, Pauli made an attempt to
calculate accelerated motion in his monograph "Relativity", but this
attempt vanished in the first transformations, undertaking no step to
non-inertial frames. And you are repeating after them that Newton is a
limiting case of Einstein. No, these are relativists who want to
persuade us all in that. But for it, SR not only has to be reduced to
Newton's system IN SOME PARTICULAR CASES, it has also to have so
complete scope for transformations as Newton's conception has.
Relativists will have it available after they see their own ears
without mirror. They fully understand their feebleness, this is the
source of so much malice and swearing at classical physics which
relativists transfer to their opuses.

This is why, if you really want to grasp the issue, I would advice
you, put tensors aside and try to understand the meaning of classical
laws. This is where is the development.

True, the subject of this thread is some other and I would be grateful
if you express your opinion as to Leo's question and my respond. This
is of not small importance, as in my respond I essentially change the
basic formula of radio physics and factually show that standard
analysis of near field of EM radiation was still based on the formula
that was derived incorrectly. And to the point, you are saying, this
is Einstein's merit that he established the postulate of constant
velocity of light in all frames of reference. Experience shows the EM
waves velocity inconstant in the near field, so this famous postulate
is violated even out of any transition between the reference frames.
We supporters of classical wave physics know the cause and have the
mathematical model, we need not for this relativistic postulates. We
have the regularities of classical physics that are based on its
phenomenology and work as it is done, not as definite persons desire.
This is why Franz and Bilge are so angry! ;-) Notice, they wrote
volumes here but said still nothing.

I wish you every success in understanding the essence of physical
processes.

Sergey