sci.physics.relativity

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:09:52 +1100, "Artful" wrote:

>"Dr. Henri Wilson" wrote in message
>news:e2mbs3tsqveppoerahggome3dtquvmams5@...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:48:25 +0100, YBM wrote:
>>

>> Ken sometimes stumbles on the truth ....apparently by accident.
>>
>> One thing is certain however, at least aether theories are consistent and
>> logical, in contrast to SR which is circular mathematical nonsense riddled
>> with
>> self-contradictions and having absolutely NO physical relevance.
>
>Then you simply do not understand SR .. it is completely consistent and has
>physical relevance .. ever experiment made to test it confirms its
>predictions .. it correctly predicts experimental results (within its scope
>of applicability, of course, sometime GR is more appropriate)

GPS proves you are talking crap.
The 'velocity component' of the correction is supposed to be observational not
physical...as are all SR's contractions....yet you actually count the
difference in the number of ticks emitted by the clock. The change is REAL.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
/hewn/

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >.