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 17 Feb 2010 04:16 On Feb 17, 6:25 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > - snip - > > heh-heh, what next for the einsteinians? Their own textbooks not good > enough, and only hand-waving will suffice for credibility? > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee At least SR is logically valid, unlike your attempts at arguments against it.
From: artful on 17 Feb 2010 04:20 On Feb 17, 6:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2:04 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > 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 ---- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Arindam, even Newtonian relativity of velocities confuses the river/ > > river bank analogy for movement of light 'thru' its carrier medium (if > > any). > > You are the one confused. Question is, why. > > > You need to clear up your apparent confusion re the speed of sound > > moving thru an air medium before trying to apply it as an analogy for > > the more complex theory of the 'speed' of propagation of photons > > (light) snd electromagnetic radiations. > > What I have written is perfectly consistent by itself and has nothing > whatseover to do with sound. Yes, it is a side-issue to show why the > Doppler effect happens - this matter is confused by the relativists, > simply in order to boost the sanctity of the speed of light's > constancy. That I have done. Yes, an experiment using radar and > sonar is required to show once and for all how the speed of sound > varies with the speed of fhe emitter. Really it has to do with the > basics of wave motion. > > > Neither the speed of sound or light is analogous to the speed of a > > bullet (projectile) in which the velocity of the gun muzzle (v) has > > to be applied to the muzzle velocity (V) of the bullet, such that the > > overall bullet speed is a vector of v and V. If sound were to act > > like a projectile then, as I stated previously, a plane could not > > catch up to the sound it emits and it would not be possible to break > > the sound 'barrier'. > > A plane *does not* catch up with the sound it emits. It always goes > on ahead of it. On the ground it hits the receiver faster as it > approaches, and much slower as it recedes. Does this confuse you too > much? > > > Thus, you are clearly incorrect in using the speed of a projectile as > > an analogy for the speed of sound in air or for the speed of light in > > its carrier medium (if any). > > Nothing clear at all, except your own assumption of sound's speed > invariance and its irrelevant extension to the MMI experiment. > > > Your confusion re the speed of sound arises from the fact that you > > are considering a continuous train of sound waves rather than just > > the wavefront. > > I am considering a travelling wave, which is the case. > > > Thus, when the reciever is approaching a stationary > > emittor, > > Ah, so far we were talking about a moving source for the sound. This > is apparently different. A new theme! > In any case, it should not make any difference. What matters is the > sound speed between the emitter and the receiver. > > > the sound wavefront travels at speed S over a shorter > > distance, hence is heard sooner, than when the receiver is > > stationary. > > Look, you are totally confused about wave motion. What really matters > in the Doppler effect is the *relative* velocity between the source > and emitter. Because then the waves pass faster (in either case) > across the receiver, and so the frequency count goes up. The > wavelength does NOT get shortened - that is a most ridiculous idea, > which people have to swallow simply to please the einsteinians. > Because the frequency goes up, and they put in as a necessary > condition that the velocity is constant (no proof for this of course) > then they have to make out that the wavelength shrinks! Do you get > this into your head? Please let me know what you do not understand in > this paragraph. > > > There is no change in the speed S of the wavefront. > > Look at it this way. If someone is emitting to me some thing at > constant speed, I get so many hits per second. If I go to him with > some speed, then I get more hits over the same time. So, the > frequency of hits get increased. > Similarly if he is coming to me while emitting, I will get more hits. > Such is life. > See, when I go towards him, or he comes to me, then he is chucking at > me with greater speed than what he was when neither of us was moving. > Same happens, with sound. And light. > Hope you get this into your head. > > > When the emittor approaches the receiver, the sound wavefront again > > travels at speed S but it travels over the same distance (from its > > point of emission) as when the emittor is stationary (same point of > > emission), hence the wavefront arrives in the same time as when the > > emittor is stationary. Again no change in the intrinsic speed S of > > sound in its air medium.. > > > NB The Doppler effect does not involve changes in the speed of sound > > thru air (S) but results from an actual (emittor approaching) or > > apparent (receiver approaching) change in the frequency/wavelength of > > the sound. > > Let our discussion go forward on this basis. > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > Please read what I wrote carefully. Try to have an open mind. > Unlearning wrong ideas is as important as learning new ideas, in > science. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. > > > - Show quoted text - I note that you have not mentioned your article at http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm , since your bungle there was revealed (I'd be surprised if it was for the first time). Are you going to modify the article, or retract it as a result?
From: Zinnic on 17 Feb 2010 09:10 On Feb 17, 1:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 2:04 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 ---- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Arindam, even Newtonian relativity of velocities confuses the river/ > > river bank analogy for movement of light 'thru' its carrier medium (if > > any). > > You are the one confused. Question is, why. > > > You need to clear up your apparent confusion re the speed of sound > > moving thru an air medium before trying to apply it as an analogy for > > the more complex theory of the 'speed' of propagation of photons > > (light) snd electromagnetic radiations. > > What I have written is perfectly consistent by itself and has nothing > whatseover to do with sound. Yes, it is a side-issue to show why the > Doppler effect happens - this matter is confused by the relativists, > simply in order to boost the sanctity of the speed of light's > constancy. That I have done. Yes, an experiment using radar and > sonar is required to show once and for all how the speed of sound > varies with the speed of fhe emitter. Really it has to do with the > basics of wave motion. > > > Neither the speed of sound or light is analogous to the speed of a > > bullet (projectile) in which the velocity of the gun muzzle (v) has > > to be applied to the muzzle velocity (V) of the bullet, such that the > > overall bullet speed is a vector of v and V. If sound were to act > > like a projectile then, as I stated previously, a plane could not > > catch up to the sound it emits and it would not be possible to break > > the sound 'barrier'. > > A plane *does not* catch up with the sound it emits. It always goes > on ahead of it. On the ground it hits the receiver faster as it > approaches, and much slower as it recedes. Does this confuse you too > much? > > > Thus, you are clearly incorrect in using the speed of a projectile as > > an analogy for the speed of sound in air or for the speed of light in > > its carrier medium (if any). > > Nothing clear at all, except your own assumption of sound's speed > invariance and its irrelevant extension to the MMI experiment. > > > Your confusion re the speed of sound arises from the fact that you > > are considering a continuous train of sound waves rather than just > > the wavefront. > > I am considering a travelling wave, which is the case. > > > Thus, when the reciever is approaching a stationary > > emittor, > > Ah, so far we were talking about a moving source for the sound. This > is apparently different. A new theme! > In any case, it should not make any difference. What matters is the > sound speed between the emitter and the receiver. > > > the sound wavefront travels at speed S over a shorter > > distance, hence is heard sooner, than when the receiver is > > stationary. > > Look, you are totally confused about wave motion. What really matters > in the Doppler effect is the *relative* velocity between the source > and emitter. Because then the waves pass faster (in either case) > across the receiver, and so the frequency count goes up. The > wavelength does NOT get shortened - that is a most ridiculous idea, > which people have to swallow simply to please the einsteinians. > Because the frequency goes up, and they put in as a necessary > condition that the velocity is constant (no proof for this of course) > then they have to make out that the wavelength shrinks! Do you get > this into your head? Please let me know what you do not understand in > this paragraph. > > > There is no change in the speed S of the wavefront. > > Look at it this way. If someone is emitting to me some thing at > constant speed, I get so many hits per second. If I go to him with > some speed, then I get more hits over the same time. So, the > frequency of hits get increased. > Similarly if he is coming to me while emitting, I will get more hits. > Such is life. > See, when I go towards him, or he comes to me, then he is chucking at > me with greater speed than what he was when neither of us was moving. > Same happens, with sound. And light. > Hope you get this into your head. > > > > > When the emittor approaches the receiver, the sound wavefront again > > travels at speed S but it travels over the same distance (from its > > point of emission) as when the emittor is stationary (same point of > > emission), hence the wavefront arrives in the same time as when the > > emittor is stationary. Again no change in the intrinsic speed S of > > sound in its air medium.. > Arindam, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt re your receptiveness to rational discussion. However, Artful provided the link to your article claiming to debunk the interpretation of the null result observed in the MM experiment. In your article you claim:- Quote. "This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to the float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fixed with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the physicists, past and present. However, it is an absolute and undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the same velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all later non-Aristotelian astronomers. There is no way it is possible to give any object on earth a negative velocity through some external ether hook-up process! All objects on Earth move at the same speed v. So we do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as we orbit the Sun! There is no way we can go to and from goal posts fixed in the ether reference! Nor can light travel to and from goal posts fixed in the ether reference! " Unquote. I find it almost unbelievable that you base your argument on such naivette. Here you even object to the concept of Newtonian relativity with respect to river flow (Earth) and river bank/bed (aether) yet you do not hesitate to use it to represent the relative speed of the swimmer with and against the river flow i.e. C + v and C- v. Everyone, including you, knows that supersonic speeds would be impossible if the speed of sound (S) and the speed of the sound emittor (v) were additive as is the case for a projectile. Thus, your claim that experiments need to be done to prove that projectile physics it does not apply to the propagation of sound in air is to avoid a known fact. You repeat yourself regardless of what I say. I pointed out that in the Doppler effect, when the receiver is approaching a stationary sound emitter, there is no change in the actual frequency but an apparent change with a corresponding apparent change in wavelength as the receiver moves through the sound wave train.. In contrast when the sound emittor approaches the receiver there is an actual change in frequency and in wavelength because the air impulses are compressed by the emittor's motion thru the stationary air medium. There is no point in continuing with this discussion because you are immune to the facts. I will let them speak for themselves. Regards Zinnic PS. I was a radar technician in the military, so your claim of expertize in this area is not impressive.
From: Zinnic on 18 Feb 2010 08:09 On Feb 17, 8:10 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 17, 1:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 2:04 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > 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 ---- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Arindam, even Newtonian relativity of velocities confuses the river/ > > > river bank analogy for movement of light 'thru' its carrier medium (if > > > any). > > > You are the one confused. Question is, why. > > > > You need to clear up your apparent confusion re the speed of sound > > > moving thru an air medium before trying to apply it as an analogy for > > > the more complex theory of the 'speed' of propagation of photons > > > (light) snd electromagnetic radiations. > > > What I have written is perfectly consistent by itself and has nothing > > whatseover to do with sound. Yes, it is a side-issue to show why the > > Doppler effect happens - this matter is confused by the relativists, > > simply in order to boost the sanctity of the speed of light's > > constancy. That I have done. Yes, an experiment using radar and > > sonar is required to show once and for all how the speed of sound > > varies with the speed of fhe emitter. Really it has to do with the > > basics of wave motion. > > > > Neither the speed of sound or light is analogous to the speed of a > > > bullet (projectile) in which the velocity of the gun muzzle (v) has > > > to be applied to the muzzle velocity (V) of the bullet, such that the > > > overall bullet speed is a vector of v and V. If sound were to act > > > like a projectile then, as I stated previously, a plane could not > > > catch up to the sound it emits and it would not be possible to break > > > the sound 'barrier'. > > > A plane *does not* catch up with the sound it emits. It always goes > > on ahead of it. On the ground it hits the receiver faster as it > > approaches, and much slower as it recedes. Does this confuse you too > > much? > > > > Thus, you are clearly incorrect in using the speed of a projectile as > > > an analogy for the speed of sound in air or for the speed of light in > > > its carrier medium (if any). > > > Nothing clear at all, except your own assumption of sound's speed > > invariance and its irrelevant extension to the MMI experiment. > > > > Your confusion re the speed of sound arises from the fact that you > > > are considering a continuous train of sound waves rather than just > > > the wavefront. > > > I am considering a travelling wave, which is the case. > > > > Thus, when the reciever is approaching a stationary > > > emittor, > > > Ah, so far we were talking about a moving source for the sound. This > > is apparently different. A new theme! > > In any case, it should not make any difference. What matters is the > > sound speed between the emitter and the receiver. > > > > the sound wavefront travels at speed S over a shorter > > > distance, hence is heard sooner, than when the receiver is > > > stationary. > > > Look, you are totally confused about wave motion. What really matters > > in the Doppler effect is the *relative* velocity between the source > > and emitter. Because then the waves pass faster (in either case) > > across the receiver, and so the frequency count goes up. The > > wavelength does NOT get shortened - that is a most ridiculous idea, > > which people have to swallow simply to please the einsteinians. > > Because the frequency goes up, and they put in as a necessary > > condition that the velocity is constant (no proof for this of course) > > then they have to make out that the wavelength shrinks! Do you get > > this into your head? Please let me know what you do not understand in > > this paragraph. > > > > There is no change in the speed S of the wavefront. > > > Look at it this way. If someone is emitting to me some thing at > > constant speed, I get so many hits per second. If I go to him with > > some speed, then I get more hits over the same time. So, the > > frequency of hits get increased. > > Similarly if he is coming to me while emitting, I will get more hits. > > Such is life. > > See, when I go towards him, or he comes to me, then he is chucking at > > me with greater speed than what he was when neither of us was moving. > > Same happens, with sound. And light. > > Hope you get this into your head. > > > > When the emittor approaches the receiver, the sound wavefront again > > > travels at speed S but it travels over the same distance (from its > > > point of emission) as when the emittor is stationary (same point of > > > emission), hence the wavefront arrives in the same time as when the > > > emittor is stationary. Again no change in the intrinsic speed S of > > > sound in its air medium.. > > Arindam, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt re your > receptiveness to rational discussion. > However, Artful provided the link to your article claiming to debunk > the interpretation of the null result observed in the MM experiment. > In your article you claim:- > > Quote. > "This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to the > float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fixed > with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the > physicists, past and present. However, it is an absolute and > undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the same > velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that > tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all later > non-Aristotelian astronomers. There is no way it is possible to give > any object on earth a negative velocity through some external ether > hook-up process! All objects on Earth move at the same speed v. So > we do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as we > orbit the Sun! There is no way we can go to and from goal posts fixed > in the ether reference! Nor can light travel to and from goal posts > fixed in the ether reference! " Unquote. > > I find it almost unbelievable that you base your argument on such > naivette. Here you even object to the concept of Newtonian relativity > with respect to river flow (Earth) and river bank/bed (aether) yet you > do not hesitate to use it to represent the relative speed of the > swimmer with and against the river flow i.e. C + v and C- v. > > Everyone, including you, knows that supersonic speeds would be > impossible if the speed of sound (S) and the speed of the sound > emittor (v) were additive as is the case for a projectile. Thus, > your claim that experiments need to be done to prove that projectile > physics it does not apply to the propagation of sound in air is to > avoid a known fact. > > You repeat yourself regardless of what I say. I pointed out that in > the Doppler effect, when the receiver is approaching a stationary > sound emitter, there is no change in the actual frequency but an > apparent change with a corresponding apparent change in wavelength as > the receiver moves through the sound wave train.. In contrast when the > sound emittor approaches the receiver there is an actual change in > frequency and in wavelength because the air impulses are compressed by > the emittor's motion thru the stationary air medium. > > There is no point in continuing with this discussion because you are > immune to the facts. I will let them speak for themselves. > Regards > Zinnic > PS. I was a radar technician in the military, so your claim of > expertize in this area is not impressive. A quote from your post: "There was one pertinent observation raised (by Zinnic) - that the speed of sound is believed to be invariant wrt the speed of the emitter, and if such is so, why should not the speed of light be invariant? Well, there are two aspects here: - the speed of sound is most likely dependent upon the speed of the emitter, and a radar/sonar combination will prove this one way or the other ". "Most likely" does not do it! Concede this point re sound! As I said, propagation of light is not analagous to the propagation of sound in air (S) because, in the latter, the speed of sound RELATIVE to an OBSERVER (ear) moving at speed V can be given as (S + V) or (S - V). This Newtonian relativity does NOT apply when the sound SOURCE is moving, but does apply when the propagating medium (air, water etc) is moving (wind) at a speed of V. The apparent sound speed relative to the observer is then (S + V) or (S - V). It remains for you to establish your claim that special relativity is incorrect, although I cannot see why you say it is founded on the MM experiment. I believe that the river-river bed(bank) analogy for this experiment is confusing re the motion of the Earth versus the relative motion of the aether. This does not arise in the analogy in which a raft (Earth) is towed in a lake of static water (aether). Hope that helps! Zinnic
From: spudnik on 19 Feb 2010 01:13
don't top-post!... waht exactly is not analogous about doppler shifts of frequency of light waves & sound waves? presumably, there are no "photonic booms," because nothing can emit light that is going at over "warp factor one." > "Most likely" does not do it! Concede this point re sound! > As I said, propagation of light is not analagous to the propagation > of sound in air (S) because, in the latter, the speed of sound > RELATIVE to an OBSERVER (ear) moving at speed V can be given as (S > + V) or (S - V). > > This Newtonian relativity does NOT apply when the sound SOURCE is > moving, but does apply > when the propagating medium (air, water etc) is moving (wind) at a > speed of V. The apparent sound speed relative to the observer is then > (S + V) or (S - V). > > It remains for you to establish your claim that special relativity is > incorrect, although I cannot see why you say it is founded on the MM > experiment. I believe that the river-river bed(bank) analogy for this > experiment is confusing re the motion of the Earth versus the relative > motion of the aether. This does not arise in the analogy in which a > raft (Earth) is towed in a lake of static water (aether). Hope that thus: sea-level is not rising, globally -- http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview... -- and warming is mostly equatorial. however, there is loss of soil, and that might change *relative* sea-level in some locations, as well as dysplace some sea! thus quoth: Lets take a look at the complexity of polar bear life. First, the polar bear has been around for about 250,000 years, having survived both an Ice Age, and the last Interglacial period (130,000 years ago), when there was virtually no ice at the North Pole. Clearly, polar bears have adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. (This fact alone makes the polar bear smarter than Al Gore and the other global warming alarmists. Perhaps the polar bear survived the last Interglacial because it did not have computer climate models that said polar bears should not have survived!) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GW_polarbears.pdf http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html thus: the photographic record that I saw, in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania, seemed to show quite a "bending" effect, I must say; not that the usual interpretation is correct, though. Nude Scientist said: > > "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- > > bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned --Another Flower for Einstein: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice-ists_sudan.html |