Re: The Special Theory of Relativity is dead (not)

On 2 Dec 2003 15:00:22 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (smarter_than_you) wrote:

>"Robert Calvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>
>While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
>wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
>DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.).  However, I will fault Einstein
>and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
>confusion.  Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
>any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),
>but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
>usually phrased.  Pay attention now:
>
>Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
>frame of reference."
>
>The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
>velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
>equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
>other."
>
You got it right up to here. The rest is crap.



Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm