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: spudnik on 7 Feb 2010 22:26 "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a "quantization" of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, at all. > From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over > radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound > transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be > verified by sound experiments. > Most certainly, these experiments are worth doing. > There is no doubt at all the velocity of propagation is dependent upon > the medium - the famous eclipse experiment "proving' (heh-heh) GR was > not just a bungle, it was sleight of hand. The denser medium around > the eclipsed sun bent the light with the simple natural process of > refraction, causing the stellar displacemnts passed off hence as proof > of the sun acting as a gravity lens. An optical phenomenon became > hallowed as the great proof of GR - and held to this day! thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: whoever on 7 Feb 2010 23:15 Lets look at his article... > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm [skip over intro and wandering amongst the stars and quoted textbook text and conspiracy theories as typical of crackpots] > The Great Bungle Now Explained (below). > > It is evident from the above (extracts from > the paras 5.1 to 5.5 of the textbook "Physics > of the atom) that the entire basis of > Einstein's theory of relativity depends upon > the null result of the Michelson -Morley > interferometer experiment. That is blatantly incorrect. The MMX was not the basis for SR. It is one of many experiments that is consistent with SR predictions. There are many such experiments. A quick search for experimental evidence for SR will reveal list and details of a multitude of such experiments. > This single fact is of vital importance. Except it is clearly not a fact > Equally important is that analogy given earlier, > relating to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, > and perpendicular to, the flowing river. A nice little analogy, when understood > For based upon this analogy, and this analogy > alone, was the logic and also the mathematics > for the analysis of the Michelson-Morley > interferometer experiment developed. Again, that is an outright lie. That analogy is NOT the sole basis for analysis of MMX. It was simply one chosen in the particular quoted text to help students understand > Let us see how far this analogy relates to the > dynamics of light on this our moving earth. Taking analogies too far often leads to errors. Few analogies are perfect. > The diagram is redrawn below: [diagram goes here] > We must note here, once again, that in this > analogy A, C and D are fixed floats on the > river bed. So, while the swimmer himself > is affected by the flow of water, which > gives him a higher or lower speed depending > upon his direction, the floats are not > affected at all. They are stuck to the > river bed, and thus, have the same > fixedness as the river bank. Yes. The floats correspond to the MMX apparatus in the laboratory, fixed on earth which is (according to the aether theory of the time) in a stream of flowing aether (due to earths motion wrt the aether) > If this analogy (with respect to the motion > of earth in ether) is correct, then the > subsequent mathematics (that gives us the > famous Lorentz transformation) is correct. Hence the test .. if the values predicted by having the earth in a stream of flowing aether are found, then that would support that theory. If not, they would refute it. That no such result was found refuted the theory where the earth is in motion wrt the aether. > But is this analogy correct? It is a good analogy of what was thought to be the case at the time. > For the analogy to hold, the river is the > Earth moving with speed v No .. the river is the aether > and the river bank is the ether or absolute > frame of reference. No .. the river bank is the earth and laboratory apparatus Remainder of argument is moot due to your total misunderstanding of the analogy. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Arindam Banerjee on 8 Feb 2010 18:00 On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a > "quantization" > of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one > that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect > of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, > at all. > > > From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over > > radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound > > transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be > > verified by sound experiments. > > Most certainly, these experiments are worth doing. > > There is no doubt at all the velocity of propagation is dependent upon > > the medium - the famous eclipse experiment "proving' (heh-heh) GR was > > not just a bungle, it was sleight of hand. The denser medium around > > the eclipsed sun bent the light with the simple natural process of > > refraction, causing the stellar displacemnts passed off hence as proof > > of the sun acting as a gravity lens. An optical phenomenon became > > hallowed as the great proof of GR - and held to this day! > > thus: > what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, > one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; > Young et al completely rid us of that theory, > which also had that denser media had faster light). > > maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means > "particle," > your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: > there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. > > --les OEuvres!http://wlym.com After tuning microwave antennas for year after year, I lost all faith in photons, mate! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: artful on 8 Feb 2010 18:02 On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a > > "quantization" > > of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one > > that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect > > of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, > > at all. > > > > From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over > > > radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound > > > transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be > > > verified by sound experiments. > > > Most certainly, these experiments are worth doing. > > > There is no doubt at all the velocity of propagation is dependent upon > > > the medium - the famous eclipse experiment "proving' (heh-heh) GR was > > > not just a bungle, it was sleight of hand. The denser medium around > > > the eclipsed sun bent the light with the simple natural process of > > > refraction, causing the stellar displacemnts passed off hence as proof > > > of the sun acting as a gravity lens. An optical phenomenon became > > > hallowed as the great proof of GR - and held to this day! > > > thus: > > what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, > > one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; > > Young et al completely rid us of that theory, > > which also had that denser media had faster light). > > > maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means > > "particle," > > your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: > > there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. > > > --les OEuvres!http://wlym.com > > After tuning microwave antennas for year after year, I lost all faith > in photons, mate! > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee Photons do not require your faith. Nor anyones faith. BTW: Are you going to correct your article that has completely incorrect opposite interpretation of the river/bank analogy of MMX?
From: Arindam Banerjee on 8 Feb 2010 18:10
On Feb 9, 10:02 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 10:00 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2:26 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a > > > "quantization" > > > of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one > > > that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect > > > of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, > > > at all. > > > > > From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over > > > > radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound > > > > transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be > > > > verified by sound experiments. > > > > Most certainly, these experiments are worth doing. > > > > There is no doubt at all the velocity of propagation is dependent upon > > > > the medium - the famous eclipse experiment "proving' (heh-heh) GR was > > > > not just a bungle, it was sleight of hand. The denser medium around > > > > the eclipsed sun bent the light with the simple natural process of > > > > refraction, causing the stellar displacemnts passed off hence as proof > > > > of the sun acting as a gravity lens. An optical phenomenon became > > > > hallowed as the great proof of GR - and held to this day! > > > > thus: > > > what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, > > > one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; > > > Young et al completely rid us of that theory, > > > which also had that denser media had faster light). > > > > maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means > > > "particle," > > > your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: > > > there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. > > > > --les OEuvres!http://wlym.com > > > After tuning microwave antennas for year after year, I lost all faith > > in photons, mate! > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > Photons do not require your faith. Nor anyones faith. Relativity-belief requries not just faith, but folly or crminality. > BTW: Are you going to correct your article that has completely > incorrect opposite interpretation of the river/bank analogy of MMX? Are you all going to correct all your lying text books, research papers that are continuing with the preposterous lies that I have exposed in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm Once that is done, the rubbish of einstein disposed of that is, we can get to the REAL physics based upon my discovery of the true relationship between mass and energy. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |