Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / April 2009

Relativity idiots have all overlooked these obvious problems with
relativity.
ERROR 1: Launched missiles will be shorter after launch, according to
relativists. So a 10 m long missile no longer be 10 m long, and it

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/29/gamma.ray.burst.space/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
___________________________________
(CNN) -- Edo Berger got an alert early last Thursday morning when a
satellite detected a 10-second blast of energy known as a gamma ray

"Evidence of the Existence of the Aether"
    (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
    It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made

"Corrections to Special Relativity"
    (See also our sister website reticsessays.com)
    Special Relativity can be defined in terms of the Lorentz
Transformation. In a Force-Length-Time system of units, which are as valid

For a really good laugh, go here
 http://conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem
Dirk Vdm

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t

A.  My understanding is that in the "second quantization," classical
objects become operators and then we can turn the operators into
expectation values.  Thus, for example, we may write the field /
potential definition (==) and Maxwell's classical equations in

Dear Amigos
the big relativists predict me, that light does not
experience space nor time, and its point of emission coincide with the
point of detection

Should GRT be amended?
From http://pagesperso-orange.fr/mluttgens/Equivalence1.htm :
Conclusion
__________

The following discussion can be viewed with the graphics files intact
at the following index page
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html
A Discussion of Special Relativity

Riedt’s Anisotropic Light Formula
c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc).
Michelson&Morley write in the American Journal of Science 203/XXIV
November 1887 describing their MMX interferometer experiment: ”The

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = -t

My previous thread, although active, was buried on the basis, I
assume, that it was becoming disruptive so let's see if this one gets
the same treatment.
I realize that it is similar to my previous post however I am

From public Yahoo Group Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:30 AM, art wagner wrote:
"Vacuum energy and the spacetime index of refraction: A new synthesis"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.2904v1.pdf

I ask this question because my general sense is that there exists a
consensus that it should not.  Evidence is often bandied about as
proof of some conceptual system consisting of concepts which can not
be directly observed.  It begs the question.  What is evidence?