Difference between revisions of "Ardeshir Mehta"

From Organic Design wiki
(Ardeshir Mehta)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
* [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.''
 +
 +
i) [http://web.archive.org/web/20080324105743/http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/CredoEinstein%27sTrain/CredoEinstein%27sTrain.html Critique] of Prof. Bryan Luther's Web Article [http://web.archive.org/web/20080324105743/http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/credo/etrain_2000.html Credo: Einstein's Train]
 +
 +
 
[[Category:Maths]]
 
[[Category:Maths]]
  

Revision as of 01:46, 6 July 2012

Ardeshir Mehta
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.

i) Critique of Prof. Bryan Luther's Web Article Credo: Einstein's Train

Attachments