Difference between revisions of "Ardeshir Mehta"
From Organic Design wiki
Infomaniac (talk | contribs) (Created page with "=====[http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html Ardeshir Mehta]===== * [http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html The ABZ of Relativity] * [http://www.scribd.com/d...") |
Infomaniac (talk | contribs) (→Ardeshir Mehta: Relativity on Archive.org - prolly ought to dl these texts asap) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=====[http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html Ardeshir Mehta]===== | =====[http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html Ardeshir Mehta]===== | ||
| − | * [http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html | + | * [http://web.archive.org/web/20080324105743/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/Relativity.html Relativity Index (archive)] |
* [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23153455/Essay-on-Geometry Essay on Geometry] on the impossibility of n>3 orthogonal directions, n>3 space, non-euclidean geometry (in nature) {{to do|task=find page reference}} | * [http://www.scribd.com/doc/23153455/Essay-on-Geometry Essay on Geometry] on the impossibility of n>3 orthogonal directions, n>3 space, non-euclidean geometry (in nature) {{to do|task=find page reference}} | ||
:''to critically examine and ... refute the logical validity of a large part of what is commonly understood to be “geometry” — especially much of what passes for non-Euclidean geometry, as well as the so-called “geometry” used in the Theory of Relativity.'' | :''to critically examine and ... refute the logical validity of a large part of what is commonly understood to be “geometry” — especially much of what passes for non-Euclidean geometry, as well as the so-called “geometry” used in the Theory of Relativity.'' | ||
[[Category:Maths]] | [[Category:Maths]] | ||
Revision as of 01:08, 6 July 2012
Ardeshir Mehta
- Relativity Index (archive)
- Essay on Geometry on the impossibility of n>3 orthogonal directions, n>3 space, non-euclidean geometry (in nature) To Do: find page reference
- to critically examine and ... refute the logical validity of a large part of what is commonly understood to be “geometry” — especially much of what passes for non-Euclidean geometry, as well as the so-called “geometry” used in the Theory of Relativity.
