Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!news.ripco.com!news.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:10:41 -0600 Message-ID: <56884AF0.22C9@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 14:10:56 -0800 From: The Starmaker Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Is Einstein's Relativity Science? References: <20151228181331.52cbcdc1b1adf4a24b221fe6@g{oogle}mail.com> <429892e7-9c02-40a3-ab99-51fdadf4eed2@googlegroups.com> <20151229185059.5965e25f3170bc0fbc93b730@g{oogle}mail.com> <7281546d-bf2c-4160-b845-e2375142770e@googlegroups.com> <20151230134827.c7a719254458a7a8f45902bb@g{oogle}mail.com> <50f4e7e6-5fd5-4734-9aad-0ddc0313c41a@googlegroups.com> <20151231151601.afc224422b374bc526bb55a9@gmail.com> <67e736a3-959c-4752-8ac0-4df5b222a8ae@googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.239.141.5 X-Trace: sv3-IiUpsiuz5kRlDLPmMi4L+A+1CuU0ZnXIWw+kmJCR79nB/njFnfIp0EOKdtnBiCN1pABqLh/jY+/GieV!kfchZmVgJR4gT31MLzlPDH2AHvEZ2aw1AZktwj2w6cLIYTdZC3JcLdpLEqmVzoTeULJloqf+Rva5!ylyG1gCNAw== X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 3913 Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:373144 JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 8:08:57 AM UTC-8, Kathleen Winder wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > On 12/31/15 12/31/15 6:16 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > > >> [SR] said nothing whatsoever about non-intertial frames of > > >> reference. They are out of its scope. > > > > > > This is not true. SR can handle non-inertial "frames" just fine [#]. But > > > if one wants to relate a set of non-inertial coordinates to the > > > coordinates of an inertial frame, or to some other set of non-inertial > > > coordinates, one must use a transform specific to the two coordinate > > > systems -- the Lorentz transform will not do that. > > > > That's probably why SR is deeply controversial. There is nothing about > > electricity in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies". He must had > > been having another theory and misspelled the titles. > > On the contrary, that paper was really about electrodynamics. It is only thanks to a certain > accident of history that the TOOLS Einstein develops in this paper in order to explain > a certain conceptual anomaly of Maxwell's electrodynamics turned out MORE important, > more general, and more revolutionary than the subject they were originally designed for. > > Hence the title of the paper. The second part of the paper ("the electrodynamics part") > is what Einstein is concentrating on while the first part ("the kinematical part") is "merely" > setting up certain tools for that. > > Since 1905 these "tools"(#) have become so standard that nowadays hardly anyone even > BOTHERS to read the second part of Einstein's paper anymore. Certainly none of the > Einstein "critics" on this newsgroup have done so (assuming they could understand it > in the first place, which I doubt). > > (#) called "special relativity" for historical reasons although the term "Einsteinian mechanics" > would be far more appropriate. > > -- > Jan Isn't about time you get pass Einstein? Let me help you... It is beyond, electrohynamics and Einsteinian mechanics... it is Electrogravity. In other words, the electric field of gravity sometimes acts like a wave, and sometimes acts like a particle. I hope i don't have to expand on that.