Reviewing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

No, I think it was probably the greatest triumph of science in recorded history.

It's not a riddle. And E=Mc*2 is an oversimplified version of the equation. Your web page analysis is focused on a limited inference of the equation. You should look up the full version.

That link took me to Dale's crackpot web site. Your grasp of science and math seems as feeble as your grasp of English.

How quaint, an insult. Thank you

You're the dork who is wastng our time with this claptrap. I see your diatribe web page is dated 2008 - that means you've had 3 years to fix the English and spelling but couldn't be bothered.

Let me ask this way. I am looking for an answer. Why is it, that two like equations’ do not use the same math rules?

All math uses the same rules. I just think that if you're going to do an analysis of an equation you should use the most precise form of the equation for your analysis.

I am looking for someone to explain why it's wrong. Why are the rules of math correct for one equation and not for the second, when both equations are similar in type and discloser? So far I have been met by the trolls (their words not mine). You think I am way off, and thats a good start but why? While in school it was beat into us if any part of an equation was incorrect the entire statement was incorrect.

There are many people on this site who are much better at math than I am. But if you want them to consider your argument I think you need to approach it in a much more honest way and not start your thread by suggesting that Einstein's theory was a riddle; which it isn't.

Simply say, "I've done some analysis of this equation and would like some honest opinions about whether I've made mistakes in my analysis". Then present your transitions step by step without referencing a web page (which is sometimes done simply to promote the page itself).

To be honest I believe he left a riddle for us to solve, so far no one has.
I am only starting with this part as I found out what comes next and am not willing to share it just yet. I did not come to this conclusion easily. It took 20 years, not 2 minutes. A few other mathematicians have gone over my work to reach the same conclusion. I do expect to get torn up for a while or at least until a publicly noted mathematician or physicist agrees with me or tells me I’m incorrect and why. At that point I can move to the next step.

I would like to thank you for your input. It was one of the most pleasant “critics” I have yet to receive.

I think you mean 'critiques'.

See some of the above critics. Some are not plesent. However you are correct with the wording of the statement. It was also the most plesent of critiques of the work and not a personal trashing.

Do to the number of people that did not seem to understand the website. I have mortified it to be easier to understand. Hopefully it can answer your questions.

As I mentioned earlier, there are many people on A2K who are much better at Math than I am. You might get some honest feedback from various individuals if you post each of the steps in your sequence here on A2K (without referencing an external web site). Cut/Paste should make that easy.

Keep each transition small and ask if anyone can see any mistakes.

I understand the general principles of SR and GR very well, but my math skills are pitiful in the scheme of things, so I won't even attempt to help you along those lines.

If you have a general question related to the principles involved in SR or GR, I may be able to help.

"Mortified?" You really do need to improve your spelling and your command of the language. People will take you more seriously. As it stands right now, you leave yourself open to criticisms which won't address the subject in which you are interested.

The word please (in the sense of to gratify) gives rise to the adjective "pleasant." When something impinges on something else, one says due--"I was late due to the heavy traffic." "Do" is a verb, and means to enact or to carry out.

You can dismiss this as just another irrelevant criticixm, but until you are sufficiently important that you are publishing your own work, and you have access to professional proofreaders and editors, it would behoove you to get a better understanding of English, so that you will be taken seriously.

Think of it as just another facet of the learning experience.

I assume he meant "modified" instead of "mortified". But it does give cause for concern when the person proposing a precise mathematical equation (in challenge to established science), also transposes words, either through carelessness or misunderstanding.

Yeah, i figured that he meant modified, too. But my point remains, and is essentially the same as yours. If one cannot express oneself coherently with at the least an approximation of standard English, it is unlikely that people who do understand special and general relativity well enough to examine ones work will bother to make the effort. Certainly there will be any number of people who won't care, and whose interest in the subject will be such that they'll take an interest in ones blog, and no interest in the quality of the writing. But i don't think those are the people who will be qualified to critique the math. They will likely be young, careless people who haven't the necessary expertise. Finally, even if one does have something worth reading, the people best qualified to judge might well not make the effort to wade through the inept language.

By the way, you refer earlier to a web page analysis--was there a link which has now been removed?

Once again, try trashing the data on the site. As to trashing me personally, I don't really care.