Prev: PROOF: LHC MORE Energy than Cosmic Ray Collisions
Next: Why does every dork and his dog continue to call it contraction?
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 04:50
On Jun 21, 6:40 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 1:41 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 8:58 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > Good morning, all honest folk.
>
> > > The "proof" for General Relativity is the famous solar eclipse
> > > experiement.  In a nutshell, GR has it that a large mass like the sun
> > > "bends" or "warps" space, and so, it acts like a "gravitational
> > > lens".  Meaning, that when the Sun is visible in the sky, it will bend
> > > the light from the distant stars (then unseen, due to sunlight) behind
> > > the Sun to such displaced positions that they did not hold in the
> > > night (when the Sun was not around). So, in a total eclipse, the
> > > positions would be seen to be displaced!
>
> > > And indeed that was shown to be the case!  The stellar positions were
> > > displaced, exactly as if the Sun was acting as a lens!  Hurrah, what a
> > > proof for General Relativity!  Lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo
> > > leading to the supposed existence of black holes, followed in due
> > > course.
>
> > > But what was really happening?  The light from the stars bent in the
> > > atmosphere extending way beyond the rim of the Sun, due to the simple
> > > process of refraction.  Light travels slowly in a dense medium (air,
> > > glass, water) with respect to vacuum.  It is this difference in speed
> > > which causes bending, known as refraction.  (Note: Put some water in a
> > > glass tumbler.  Insert a pencil into in, at an angle.  See how the
> > > pencil apparently bends?  No great relativistic or mathematical mumbo
> > > jumbo is required to explain this phenomenon.  It comes from Maxwell's
> > > mathematical derivation of the speed of light as a function of
> > > physical constants - the electric permittivity of a dense medium is
> > > greater than that of vacuum, to be a bit technical.)
>
> > > As we all know, a glass or plastic lens bends light, simply because
> > > the light passing through same has to have the same phase front and
> > > also travel slower.  This is just what is happening when the starlight
> > > passes through the dense (or light, depending upon radial distance)
> > > atmosphere outside the sun.  In other words, the sun is acting as an
> > > optical lens, and thus bending the starlight.
>
> > > To totally ignore this optical aspect, and to say that this bending is
> > > due to its bending space instead, is either terrific bungling or
> > > intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind.  I prefer the former, for
> > > the sake of thinking better of human nature (undeserved as it may be)..
>
> > It isn't ignored:
>
> > Refractions on Relativityhttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm
>
> > Sue...
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjeehttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htmhttp://adda-enterprises.co...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not in the old texts that I read, where the sun was taken as a point
> mass.  Quote from a 1950-60 textbook, where the optical lens issue has
> been discussed with reference to light bending.  Fine thing about
> print, that unlike electronic media, it cannot be manipulated.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee-

Further, let us talk a bit about the sun's very strong magnetic
field.
Now, is there anyone who argues that a very strong magnetic field may
exist without a corresponding very strong and reasonably constant
electric current?
Assuming that no one disputes this, then, where o where can be the
extremely strong electric current in the sun?
Can a very very hot core of the sun support a very strong and
reasonably constant electric current?
Can it?
We don't know.
On the other hand, we do know that in very cold metal,
superconductivity takes place and very large currents may flow.
So, if the Sun's core is very cold metal say iron, it will support a
very large current.
Which will account for the Sun's very strong magnetic field.
Agreed?
But if the Sun's core is very very cold, then what price fusion, what
about e=cc reducing solar mass via hot fusion into energy?
Well, since e=mcc is bollocks, you don't need fusion at all to explain
solar energy.
e=0.5mVVN(N-k) can explain that, as it can explain all energy
formations.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Jun 2010 08:35
On Jun 21, 6:50 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Jun 21, 6:40 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 1:41 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 8:58 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Good morning, all honest folk.
>
> > > > The "proof" for General Relativity is the famous solar eclipse
> > > > experiement.  In a nutshell, GR has it that a large mass like the sun
> > > > "bends" or "warps" space, and so, it acts like a "gravitational
> > > > lens".  Meaning, that when the Sun is visible in the sky, it will bend
> > > > the light from the distant stars (then unseen, due to sunlight) behind
> > > > the Sun to such displaced positions that they did not hold in the
> > > > night (when the Sun was not around). So, in a total eclipse, the
> > > > positions would be seen to be displaced!
>
> > > > And indeed that was shown to be the case!  The stellar positions were
> > > > displaced, exactly as if the Sun was acting as a lens!  Hurrah, what a
> > > > proof for General Relativity!  Lots of mathematical mumbo-jumbo
> > > > leading to the supposed existence of black holes, followed in due
> > > > course.
>
> > > > But what was really happening?  The light from the stars bent in the
> > > > atmosphere extending way beyond the rim of the Sun, due to the simple
> > > > process of refraction.  Light travels slowly in a dense medium (air,
> > > > glass, water) with respect to vacuum.  It is this difference in speed
> > > > which causes bending, known as refraction.  (Note: Put some water in a
> > > > glass tumbler.  Insert a pencil into in, at an angle.  See how the
> > > > pencil apparently bends?  No great relativistic or mathematical mumbo
> > > > jumbo is required to explain this phenomenon.  It comes from Maxwell's
> > > > mathematical derivation of the speed of light as a function of
> > > > physical constants - the electric permittivity of a dense medium is
> > > > greater than that of vacuum, to be a bit technical.)
>
> > > > As we all know, a glass or plastic lens bends light, simply because
> > > > the light passing through same has to have the same phase front and
> > > > also travel slower.  This is just what is happening when the starlight
> > > > passes through the dense (or light, depending upon radial distance)
> > > > atmosphere outside the sun.  In other words, the sun is acting as an
> > > > optical lens, and thus bending the starlight.
>
> > > > To totally ignore this optical aspect, and to say that this bending is
> > > > due to its bending space instead, is either terrific bungling or
> > > > intellectual dishonesty of the lowest kind.  I prefer the former, for
> > > > the sake of thinking better of human nature (undeserved as it may be).
>
> > > It isn't ignored:
>
> > > Refractions on Relativityhttp://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm
>
> > > Sue...
>
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Arindam Banerjeehttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htmhttp://adda-enterprises.co...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Not in the old texts that I read, where the sun was taken as a point
> > mass.  Quote from a 1950-60 textbook, where the optical lens issue has
> > been discussed with reference to light bending.  Fine thing about
> > print, that unlike electronic media, it cannot be manipulated.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee-
>
> Further, let us talk a bit about the sun's very strong magnetic
> field.
> Now, is there anyone who argues that a very strong magnetic field may
> exist without a corresponding very strong and reasonably constant
> electric current?
> Assuming that no one disputes this, then, where o where can be the
> extremely strong electric current in the sun?
> Can a very very hot core of the sun support a very strong and
> reasonably constant electric current?
> Can it?
> We don't know.
> On the other hand, we do know that in very cold metal,
> superconductivity takes place and very large currents may flow.
> So, if the Sun's core is very cold metal say iron, it will support a
> very large current.
> Which will account for the Sun's very strong magnetic field.
> Agreed?
> But if the Sun's core is very very cold, then what price fusion, what
> about e=cc reducing solar mass via hot fusion into energy?
> Well, since e=mcc is bollocks, you don't need fusion at all to explain
> solar energy.
> e=0.5mVVN(N-k) can explain that, as it can explain all energy
> formations.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee

No wonder the ancients loved and worshipped the Sun, as the Sun
represented all that is great, noble and life-sustaining.
In our einsteinian world of black-hole worshipping liars and perverts,
what chance of anything but pornography galore?
In sadness,
Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 22 Jun 2010 01:28
thug
From: Arindam Banerjee on 22 Jun 2010 01:28
stupid thug
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 22 Jun 2010 02:08
On Jun 22, 1:28 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> thug

Your subject heading is utter thuggery. Jesus, your Einstein voodoo
doll, actually beleived in "god". Why don't you go and try to smash in
somebody elses face, yer mentally ill lazy eyed pyscho.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: PROOF: LHC MORE Energy than Cosmic Ray Collisions
Next: Why does every dork and his dog continue to call it contraction?