sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 19, 6:55=A0am, "Androcles" wrote:
> =A0 Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog th=
at
> =A0Roberts suggests.

Well. The paper was written by the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein.
What concerns people is the interpretation. Can someone pls. write
a FAQ or something about how the points differ between these
two brilliant physicists (Roberts vs Androcles)? The public needs to
know
how each one thinks so we can gauge the true nature of it all.

nade

> =A0http://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 Bia=B3ek" 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 wit=
h
> > the
> > | unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively t=
o
> > 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 wha=
t
> > relative motion is BEFORE Einstein calls it the "principle and relativit=
y"
> > 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 recommen=
ds
> > 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- Hide quote=
d text -
>
> - Show quoted text -