sci.physics.electromag

"nade" wrote in message
news:7268fcb4-3397-441e-af7e-cab45821a9ab@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 6:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
> Read the paper. Here it is, no need to buy the tail wagging the dog that
> Roberts 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

Roberts has made himself clear, he recommends you read "Spacetime Physics".
I recommend you read the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein. In particular,
I recommend you discover for yourself (and repeat) the experiment that
the Ultimate Genius Himself, Einstein, conducted that led to his great
discovery
that 4 = 12 because the "time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals
the "time'' it requires to travel from B to A, as shown here in pictures
that a
12-year-old Ultimate DumbCluck could understand:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif






> 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- Hide
> >quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -