http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html#forthcoming
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies that Led him to it." in Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner, eds., Cambridge
University Press. Preprint.
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ...

When your clock goes slow by Gamma due to acceleration the outside to
you looks like its time has accelerated. Your slow clock makes
everything around your frame look accelerated by the Gamma factor.

Get close to extreme gravity and you will see the same thing. An hour
in gravity might take you a milllion years into the future of the rest
of the universe so to speek.

Mitch Raemsch; Relative Time

No. I don't think so.

"I want to know how God created this universe. All the rest are just
details." Albert Einstein

Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

I don't have all the math background necessary to use Noether's
theorem. Therefore, I can't determine whether the following conjecture
is true. I came up with this purely on intuition. If someone
disagrees, I won't argue. What is wrong, if anything, with the
following argument.
Noether's theorem can loosely be described as saying that a
quantity is conserved if and only if it has a conjugate variable to
which the physical system is invariant.
The principle of special relativity is based on the idea that the
fields and particle interactions that describe a physical system is
invariant to the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations
correspond to a type of symmetry.
I conjecture that the reason that the universe is invariant to
the Lorentz transformation is that the speed of light, c, is a
conjugate variable to all the magnitude of the inertial velocity, v,
in the Lorentz transformation to which the fields and particle
interactions are invariant.
In other words, the speed of an intertial frame relative to
another inertial frame is the conjugate variable to the speed of
light. ...

On May 26, 12:12 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:

In the past, I have provided a Wikipedia link that itself quoted a value of
R_H that was obviously non-relativistic in signature. Today, I went back to
Wikipedia, and the quoted value is now gone. I cannot find it anywhere, it
is not in any of Wikipedia links that would quote it. I may have missed it
somewhere, but I looked where it was once, and looked all over where it may
have moved to, and I can't find it. It was there for a long time, and now
looks like it is gone. And these pages appear to have been recently
modified, according to the modification dates listed at the bottom. I wonder
why the people in charge of Wikipedia decided to remove it.

Steve Bell

There are six kinds of quarks (Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, Bottom).
Protons and neutrons are composed of Up- and Down-quarks, which, as
far as I know, are stable.

The physicists don't seem to see anything illogical in the concept of
a force-carrying particle, and neither do I (as a nonphysicist).

I don't see any difference between a nonphysical and a spiritual
reality populated by souls and spirits such as gods, angels, demons,
and other ghosts.

Isn't "materiality" a semantic part of the concept of a (concrete)
fabric?

"The Aether and Charges of Charlatanism"

There have been a significant number of newsposts from individuals who
have equated the suggestion that to assert the existence of the Aether is a
form of charlatanism. These assertions apparently...

Ancient people landed on other planets for many, many times over
50 million years ago. Modern man has never physically touched the
Moon, let alone Mars.
If other planets in the solar system are suitable for human living in
the "last 400 million years", many people would have lived on Mars
now. Mars now has dead bodies of people who lived there 2,500 million
years ago.

On May 26, 9:26 am, srp2...@gmail.com wrote: