Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: New Year question from Leo Date: 19 Jan 2004 14:34:32 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 89 Message-ID: References: <2a0cceff.0312281924.7853d32f@posting.google.com> <3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> <3ffa73fa$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.177.112.246 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1074551672 6712 127.0.0.1 (19 Jan 2004 22:34:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:34:32 +0000 (UTC) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:69 Russ Lyttle wrote in message news:... > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > > Russ Lyttle wrote in message > > news:... > >> Harry wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > "Greg Neill" wrote in message > >> > news:ZjfKb.74347$by2.859190@wagner.videotron.net... > >> >> "Harry" wrote in message > >> >> news:3ff969fe$1@epflnews.epfl.ch... > >> >> > > >> >> > "Franz Heymann" wrote in message > >> >> > news:btbcc0$qri$5@titan.btinternet.com... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" 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