Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense - the basic mistake exposed!
in [Math]
|
Prev: finding parametric equations
Next: Documents of Project DoD Federici DMCA Takedown lawsuit now available
From: Igor on 5 Jan 2010 10:57 On Jan 3, 5:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they > will not be based upon rocketry. > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > Arindam Banerjee > Hampton Park, Australia Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek philosophers will be very pissed.
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 00:43 if you can find an expository book by a monsieur Trudeau, _The Non-euclidean Revolution_, he interpreted an experiment (in the literature?) of the human visual field, as showing that it was not flat (or euclidean); but, this seems to have been a mistake. there is nothing wrong with hyperbolic geometry, but it is just the fish-eye (or Fresnel) lens. there is nothing wrong with special relativity, but the general relativeity uses the totally unneeded formalism of space-time, which is just a simple phase-space (the "curvature" of that, is not wuite what it seems to be .-) > Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down > the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek > philosophers will be very pissed.- Hide quoted text - thus: I'm sure that, iff one applies himself, he will see that there are particular or generical reasons to not "not top-post;" what ever are the supposed reasons, not to not "not top-post," I have never seen them over the years, because a) I do not read "FAQs du nettiquette," and b) no-one has ever actually tried to make the case for it, despite "n" simple requests to do so; of course, some take either the act of top-posting, or the question as to, why, not, as a provacation. > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave > in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double > slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the > photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single > path. > > the point I have been making, > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 00:50 "spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e61d464a-3186-451c-b04a-f3e9e9dc2d83(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... STOP TOP-POSTING [snip top-posted content un-read]
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 00:59 why won't you excerpt form the FAQ du nettiquette, as to why, not? why don't you ask, why, so? > STOP TOP-POSTING thus: there is nothing wrong with special relativity, but the general relativeity *also* uses the unneeded formalism of space-time, which is just a simple phase-space (the "curvature" of that, is not quite what it seems to be .-) > Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down > the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek > philosophers will be very pissed.- Hide quoted text - thus: I'm sure that, iff one applies himself, he will see that there are particular or generical reasons to not "not top-post;" what ever are the supposed reasons, not to not "not top-post," I have never seen them over the years, because a) I do not read "FAQs du nettiquette," and b) no-one has ever actually tried to make the case for it, despite "n" simple requests to do so; of course, some take either the act of top-posting, or the question as to, why, not, as a provacation. > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave > in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double > slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the > photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single > path. > > the point I have been making, > > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > > they are working exclusively with matter (although > > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 7 Jan 2010 03:11
On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they > will not be based upon rocketry. > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > Arindam Banerjee > Hampton Park, Australia Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed international scrutiny. Over years and years! What next? Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system? Do we pay taxes to our governments so that our children are taught to believe in pure lies, nonsense and the resulting incomprehensible gobbledygook? Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world, I myself will give it a go! Too easy, though. I would much rather spend my time with the HTN and IFE. Nevertheless, short cuts need not be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. Hmm, going to a court of law, sounds the right thing to do. Let a professional judge decide on what is essentially a legal matter. In fact, the most fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of nature!. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. |