sci.physics.electromag

Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
Roberts suggests.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



"nade" wrote in message
news:2ceee4bb-33ed-4441-a5b5-672a368af544@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

I'm not expert in relativity so can't tell if Tom Roberts or Androcles
is correct.
Can someone (beside them) pls. share or summarize how their beliefs
differ
and who has more theoretical sense? These two people are intellectual
giants, both experts in physics and have actual physics degrees.
Those
of us without degrees surely understood less than these brilliant
physicists.

nade

On Mar 19, 6:08 am, "Androcles" wrote:
> "Szczepan Bia³ek" wrote in message
>
> news:frp50d$k4v$1@node1.news.atman.pl...
> |
> | "Androcles"
> | >
> | > About the only way to distinguish knowledgeable people from lying
> | > crackpots such as Roberts is that the former often recommend the
> | > original paper,
> | > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> |
> | In this oryginal paper (1905) is: "Examples of this sort, together with
> the
> | unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to
> the
> | ``light medium,'' ..."
>
> Did you check what the example actually is?
> It is:
> "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
> conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
> motion of the conductor and the magnet", so you are supposed to know what
> relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativity"
> and
> pompously rants about it being "the same laws of electrodynamics and
> optics
> will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
> mechanics
> hold good" as the cretin Roberts believes.
>
> What the idiot Roberts completely misses is Einstein's third postulate:
> the
> ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it
> requires
> to travel from B to A, which is FALSE.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
>
> Roberts has never read the original paper which is why the prat recommends
> the kiddy book, "Spacetime physics". Knowledgable he is NOT.
>
> | I another is: " in 1925 Michelson and Gale " did indeed detect the
> rotation
> | of the earth".
> | What knowledgeable people are thinking about it.
> | S*
>
> All Michelson and Gale detected was the coriolis effect.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm