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: PD on 10 Feb 2010 09:42 On Feb 10, 5:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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 inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm Which textbook are you referring to that told you that the MMX was the fundamental basis of SR? > > > > > > 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 --- > >
From: PD on 10 Feb 2010 09:45 On Feb 10, 5:52 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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 inhttp://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 --- > > I'll point out to you that "The Physics of the Atom" is a book about atomic physics, which has a scant review chapter on relativity, providing light background material only, and only insofar as it pertained to the central subject matter of the book. It is NOT to be taken as a good reference for relativity or for the historical development of relativity, and in fact it gets much of the historical development wrong. If you'd like some better references for the conceptual basis or the historical development of relativity, I could certainly suggest a half dozen much better ones. Sigh, this is so sad. PD
From: spudnik on 13 Feb 2010 23:12 you rock, Arindam -- rocks o'light! anyway, there is probably a reason, why the patsy in teh assassination of JFK, was set-up at the Texas Schoolbook Suppository, and textbooks are an awful way to discover the original insights of the discoverers (too many God-am Newtonians, as well as Einsteinmaniacs, also). > I'll point out to you that "The Physics of the Atom" is a book about > atomic physics, which has a scant review chapter on relativity, thus: you Rock, Pentcho -- rocks o'light! anyway, can you excerpt more from the NS article?... I don't wawnt to sign-up to their ****. > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned > at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's > theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and > the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse > measurements to confirm general relativity." thus: you rock, Al -- rocks o'light! > [This reasoning doesn't apply in space, where the > cost of the cells is utterly negligible compared to > the "astronomical" cost of launching the system, > so the design optimization is for minimum mass/power, > not for minimum manufacturing-cost/power.] --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny and Rice's 3rd British Invasion of Sudan! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice-ists_sudan.html
From: spudnik on 13 Feb 2010 23:15 just me, myself, and Schroedinger's God-am All-hallowed Joke-cat! > Schroedinger was in complete agreement with this view. See the > scientific biography by Walter J. Moore . . . > http://www.amazon.com/Schr%C3%B6dinger-Thought-Walter-J-Moore/dp/0521... thus: you rock, Arindam -- rocks o'light! anyway, there is probably a reason, why the patsy in the assassination of JFK, was set-up at the Texas Schoolbook Suppository, and textbooks are an awful way to discover the original insights of the discoverers (too many God-am Newtonians, as well as Einsteinmaniacs, also). thus: you Rock, Pentcho -- rocks o'light! anyway, can you excerpt more from the NS article?... I don't wawnt to sign-up to their ****. > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned > at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's > theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and > the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse > measurements to confirm general relativity." thus: you rock, Al -- rocks o'light! > [This reasoning doesn't apply in space, where the > cost of the cells is utterly negligible compared to > the "astronomical" cost of launching the system, > so the design optimization is for minimum mass/power, > not for minimum manufacturing-cost/power.] --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny and Rice's 3rd British Invasion of Sudan! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice-ists_sudan.html
From: BURT on 13 Feb 2010 23:22
It is the appearence of flow around you caused by your motion. This speed shrinks in the distance. Mitch Raemsch |