Dear Colleagues,
We are pleased to announce our new study
The problem of physical time in today physics
Preface
In our previous papers devoted to different aspects of the theory of
relativity and quantum theory we showed gross mistakes of these
theories that make them groundless. So we have revealed: as today
theoretical physics rejected the robust classical approaches, it has
no reliable basis with which the scientists would be able to study
correctly. This work builds a bridge of understanding for colleagues
educated on the clearly idealistic relativistic and quantum
conceptions, returning to the correct basic concepts of absolute and
relative in the philosophy of physics - time, space, place, motion,
acceleration, forces, correlation of moving reference frames. And
though the aim of this work was to study the idea of physical time,
the close interrelation of these concepts making the basis of
classical physics required to involve to the consideration all
definitions of Newtonian mechanics and to correlate them with the
conventional theoretical and experimental basis. We tried to proceed
not from the mathematical formalism as such but, doing not neglecting
it, to base, following Newton, on the definitive properties of time as
the philosophical category, combining them with the observed
revelations and deriving from these properties the obvious, though
sometimes unexpected corollaries.
It has 7 chapters; the chapters 1-4 you can read now here:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v6_1/contents6_1.html#time
Have a pleasant reading, :)
Sergey B. Karavashkin
Head Laboratory SELF
Olga N. Karavashkina
Assistant/Researcher
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine
Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: selftrans@yandex.ru , selflab@mail.ru
http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
Sue... - 27 Feb 2007 21:56 GMT
> Dear Colleagues,
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> e-mail: selftr...@yandex.ru , self...@mail.ru
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/cover/cover.html
Hi Sergey,
In chapter 58 why do you condition light propagation with
inertial properties ?
Do you disagree?
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Sue...
Sergey Karavashkin - 28 Feb 2007 09:09 GMT
> > Dear Colleagues,
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> In chapter 58 why do you condition light propagation with
> inertial properties ?
Dear Sue, in the statement of problem in our chapter 4 that is began
on the page 58, we do not touch the issue of physical properties of
light. The same as Einstein did not touch them, postulating only the
lightspeed constancy in all frames. We analyse the patterns of
processes that arise due to the Lorentz transforms in passing from one
frame to another. Have you any claims to our calculations?
> Do you disagree?
> <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> - Показать цитируемый текст -
No doubt, the field transforms when the source moves. Please look
through the chapter 3 where we showed, classical physics describes the
field transformation in the source's motion. And in the chapter 4 we
just show that Lorentz transforms make an incorrect passing forbidden
in physics. And the animation in page 60 proves them physically
incorrect. So - yes, the field transformation exists, but in no
concern to Einsteinian postulate, and LT do not describe it.
Sergey
Uncle Al - 27 Feb 2007 22:02 GMT
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We are pleased to announce our new study
>
> The problem of physical time in today physics
[snip]
Get a clock. If you don't like oscillators, go for radioactive decay.
> In our previous papers devoted to different aspects of the theory of
> relativity and quantum theory we showed gross mistakes of these
> theories that make them groundless.
[snop]
GPS works So do CPUs, MRIs, particle accelerators, and electron
diffraction. What part of physics can you empirically falsify?
> the close interrelation of these concepts making the basis of
> classical physics required to involve to the consideration all
> definitions of Newtonian mechanics
[snip]
The universe is not Galilean, lightspeed is finite, and spacetime is
not Euclidean. Pookie-pookie.
> We tried to proceed
> not from the mathematical formalism as such but, doing not neglecting
> it, to base, following Newton,
Newton was wrong. Get over it.
[snip]

Signature
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sergey Karavashkin - 28 Feb 2007 09:10 GMT
> > Dear Colleagues,
>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Al, you still have not retarded from slogans? Maybe, you will try
to consider arguments? Have you some claims to the statements or
calculations of this part of our work? Kindly say specifically,
without pookie-pookie. :)
Sergey