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: artful on 8 Feb 2010 19:22 On Feb 9, 10:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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 inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm That is nonsense based on your misunderstanding of the analogy, as has been pointed out to you. Are yiou just going to ignore valid criticism? > 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. You are deluded
From: artful on 8 Feb 2010 19:23 On Feb 9, 10:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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. You are deluded > > 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 inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm That analysis is totally incorrect and contians misinformation and lies > 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. You are deluded
From: Arindam Banerjee on 9 Feb 2010 00:18 > Are you all going to correct all your lying text books, research > papers that are continuing with the preposterous lies that I have > exposed inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm That is nonsense based on your misunderstanding of the analogy, as has been pointed out to you. Are yiou just going to ignore valid criticism? AB: There is no valid criticism. If there is, state it. > 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. You are deluded AB: No, you all are deluded. Einstein's rubbish was very correctly dismissed by all the responsible scientists when he propounded it. Only practical jokers like Russell gave it some respectability. The power of the atomic bomb apparently proved the e=mcc rubbish, to the public mind certainly. Einsten the bungler became the greatest ever scientist! However, with my discovery of the true relationship between mass and energy, published several years ago and widely reported too, that shred of respectability is lost too. However the hold of Einstein's rubbish over the public mind is immense, and erasing all that is a major task for all worthy people. Not abusive, fraudulent, unscientific scum like the sort of no-name scoundrels who take the negative stand - as evident in this thread. I have taken pains to answer genuine issues, such as raised by Zinnic. However, I cannot waste time with those who are ignorant of the basics of mechanics. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee.
From: spudnik on 10 Feb 2010 01:25 Russell wrote in the *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*, while the USA had the only hydrogen bombs, that we should bomb them "into the stone age;" search on the LaRouchiac website. just because Einstein et al were not perfect, it does not imply that there are any phenomenon that require faster-than-light effects -- other than "travelin' in time" i.e. science fiction. well, unless one believes in "rocks of light" per the EPR gedankenspiel. "MMX" did not get no results; that is just the einsteinmaniac say-so, beginning with herr doktor-professor Albert, himself, his one brief visit at Caltech -- his lovely office! > Einsten the bungler became the greatest ever scientist! However, with my > discovery of the true relationship between mass and energy, published > several years ago and widely reported too, that shred of respectability is > lost too. 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: Arindam Banerjee on 10 Feb 2010 06:52
On Feb 8, 3:15 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > 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. Rubbish. The MMI experiment is the original and fundamental, and so far, the most incontrovertible basis of SR, as it led to the development of the first postulate of the constancy of c, which in turn led to the maths leading to the derivation of e=mcc and the bizarre physical consequences involved. Not to agree to this, is pure effrontery. It is most easily shown in any textbook, and I have quoted extensively from one such. > > > This single fact is of vital importance. > > Except it is clearly not a fact Hand-waving does not help when one is confronted with what is written in a printed textbook. Details and references are given in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > > 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 Your handwaving stands no chances before the print in a textbook. Of course the analogy was used to explain the MMI experiment. > > > 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. I am not the one making the analogy. The chap who wrote the textbook made the analogy. > > > 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) There you see! You cannot fix the appartus in the ether. You can only fix the equipment on the earth, which is moving in ether. So the earth moves in ether. And the ray of light goes from one end to the other - not on earth, but in ether or shall we say free space, for the extra distance it has to move since the earth actually moves. This is the cunning of the einsteinians, to pretend that the ether is flowing past it (in a stream of flowing ether, to quote). But by definition the ether does not flow, for it is solid. It is the earth which moves in ether. And the equipment is not fixed to ether, it is fixed to earth. But the light moves in ether, for it needs ether for its propagation. And since we all agree that the earth moves, it has to move more or less than the measured distance, which is what I have been repeating ad infinitum. > > > 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: n...(a)netfront.net --- |