"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:ad157aec.0403231733.14e23947@posting.google.com...
> "Androcles" <jp006f9750@antispamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:<zw08c.803$Xk2.244@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> > Relativity is also a fraud, a deliberate fraud.
> >
> > Consider my physical evidence:
> > http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
> >
> > Prepare your case, produce an impartial judge and jury, bring your
> > witnesses
> > for cross-examination. I charge Einstein with crime against humanity.
> > Androcles
>
> Oh, good grief, man. Whether or not Einstein was ultimately right or
> not should not have the slightest negative impact on our appreciation
> for his influence in the exponentional explosion of theoretical
> physics over the last 100 years.
>
> If you're indeed closer to the Truth than Einstein, which I don't know
> one way or the other, then it is only because his shoulders were
> available for you to stand on.

Not at all.
I stand upon the shoulders of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton,
Michelson, Balmer, Rydberg and Planck.
Einstein, like Ptolemy before him, is simply blocking the view.
Climb up with me and see for yourself.

Einstein's only contribution to science was the photo-electric effect, for
which he was given, justly, a Nobel Prize. All else has subtracted from
that. He was no mathematician, he simply manipulated high school algebra and
he couldn't even get that right.
Look at his Doppler equation, for heaven's sake.
If anything could be more nonsensical than that, I'd vote for Blair to be
re-elected.

Consider the supposed transverse doppler shift, to be
found in the equation
ref (Electrodynamics, section 7)

            1-cos(phi).v/c       (numerator)
nu' =  nu. [_______________]
            sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)     (denominator)

Assume 'v' is a radial velocity vector relative to the observe (having both
speed and direction) in the numerator, otherwise there is no requirement for
the term cos(phi), and for the transverse case phi = pi/2 or 3pi/2 such that
the transverse motion is described, cos(pi/2) = cos(3pi/2) = 0.
Yet in the denominator, 'v' is clearly a speed, having no direction
whatsoever, while 'c' is a velocity, the vector again being along the
observer's line of sight.
If we allow 'v' as a radial velocity in the denominator,  then the term
sqrt(1- (cos(phi).v)^2/c^2) is required.

                        ^ v.cos(3pi/2)
                        !
 O------- <--c, <---v --!
                        !

Suppose instead we assume 'v' is a transverse velocity to begin with, then
the equation does give the correct result of no shift at all. However, we
have no way of knowing the direction of v is suppose to be at right angles
to the direction of c and that would also deny the clock runs slow.

Also of interest is the concept "moving clocks run slow", which, together
with the simple idea that  t = 1/f, how does a clock that ticks only once
every two seconds (runs slow) emit a frequency of two ticks a second 
when v = 0.866c ?

t' = (t-vx/c^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
   = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
   = 1 * 0.5
   = 0.5
   = 1 tick per 2 seconds

(Keep in mind that the equation for t' was derived entirely along the X-axis)


                  1- 0                    (numerator)
nu' =  1  . [   ____________]
                  0.5                   (denominator)
    = 2 ticks per second.

The other glaring error is found in section 3, where we find
"If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must
have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time."

Now, relativity has to approximate Galilean relativity for v << c.
x' = x-vt is simply described below.

0--------------x'x
1-----------x'---x
2--------x'------x
3----x'----------x
       <   -vt    <

To move the other way,
0------------x
1------------x---x'
2------------x------x'
3------------x----------x'
                >   +vt   >
We see that x' = x+vt.

"*IF* we place x'=x+vt, it is blatantly obvious that a point at rest in the
system k must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time also."

Einstein has done only half the work.

t' = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = (x+vt)     /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which are the OTHER Lorentz transforms.
Run some numbers into it and you'll find the faster you go,  the later you
arrive.

Standing on Einstein's shoulders won't get you any higher than Newton's
crotch, Einstein was a pygmy.
Androcles.