JANm, die Bibel, Dingler und Mach

[JANm]

For allem der erfolgslose forscher sind der meinung das es keine freiheit von erklahrung der meinung gibt.

There are many people who believe that they have an understanding of nature which is clearer than others. Unfortunatly many of them are wrong, or are not able enough to clarify their thoughts. But JL and GO Mueller are right that the ones which should be listened to are discriminated, rather than adjusting a theory which is founded on a badly translated book of two thousand years ago.
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[galileo2609]

[JANm]

Dear 2609
You really are not asking for an honest answer is it? You yourself were banned because you had a better insight than that book. Invented clockwork during that time. The transformation named after you is compared to the one which seems to be state of the art. You thought that velocity of light could be measured with the timing of flashlights or whatever that was in your days. The same romantic thing as Michelson. Principle matter that is. The days that science was scientific. For that matter Foucault seems to have had the most succes, with his fast rotating mirror and please don't forget his pendulum.
I cannot understand that Herbert Dingle or was it Hugo Dingler don't know have to little memory for names (what is in the name?),,, when one of these two accepted a teaching chair was so enthousiastic about a relativity theory which also makes rotation relativistic. "The sky is moving around the earth because the earth is so IMPORTANT. But his inaugurele reason was so beatiful that I was crying reading it in the library. While during my studies the most irritating thing I had to learn (by head?) was the principle of Mach. You know that rotating bucket thing. The whole universe rotating around the bucket is the same as rotating the bucket.
Please Galileo do your work...
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[galileo2609]

[JANm]

The phragment I am referring to of indeed the bible is where a general wants the day to be longer so he prays: "Sun stand still". The bible is not a book of physics because we now know that should have be prayed: "earth stand still". It is this and only this part of the book I have problems with. It has given physisists much problems.

I do not know of conspiricy theories and am glad that the exact study I did was person by by person disregarding country they come/came from or political personal interests. General relativity an Special relativity theorie are difficult a subject enough in physics.
Besides I know just enough of politics to judge my personal opinion which concludes my selections every once in a while when the democratic system gives me this opertunity.
I am glad that things concerning relativity theory are solved globally nowadays and am reasonable sure about the safety evolving from that.
JANm
_________________
Weiss nicht viel aber was ich weiss benutze ich.

[JANm]

[Orbit]

JANm

[JANm]

[dhainz]

Hi Janm,

[Orbit]

JANm
Noch vor 5 Monaten hast Du Dich mit elementarsten Grundlagen der newton'schen Gravitationslehre herumgeschlagen
http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1322&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
und jetzt hast Du gar schon die ART so gut verstanden, dass Du sie widerlegen kannst.
Wahrlich eine steile Karriere!
Orbit

[JANm]

[Orbit]

[Test20071128]

[Test20071128]

Und wie Engelhardt schreibt (Aberration Jupiterexperiment), widerspricht die Beobachtung von Doppelsternsystemen auch dem Relativitätsprinzip. Das gehört doch in die selbe Ecke?

Testi

[Orbit]