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: Zinnic on 19 Feb 2010 13:20 On Feb 19, 12:13 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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." > > There is a reasonable analogy beteen Doppler effects for sound and light 'waves' if a luminous ether is a medium for light transmission as is air (or other media) for sound transmission. However, in neither case is In case is a change of intrinsic speed thru the media involved. The analogy fails because entities can move at supersonic speeds but ( as you indicate) not at superluminary speeds. Arindam claims that the propagation of light and sound are analogous to propagation of projectiles from a moving platform. My point is that it is demonstrable that the projectile analogy does NOT hold for sound. He has yet to demonstrate that it does hold for light. Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Feb 2010 21:25 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:5c5c476a-fba3-4710-b362-136b17ca1545(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 11:25 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 > > > ...and you are still an autistic imbecile. You "rock", Arindam. Your > brain is a real "rock". heh-heh. Abuse from fools does not vindicate my theory, though. It does however make it more solid to those few who are still of a scientific bent. Certainly, what I need to do is to make an experiment to prove my theory. Let us see, when that will happen. In the meantime, enjoy your loots from the public purse, you cowardly no-name Gargy rascals. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: eric gisse on 20 Feb 2010 22:13 Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > "artful" <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:7a17521d-7c47-431f-bf06-8252472c2755(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > AB: Again, when the opposition is reduced to simple hand-waving, as they > have no other option, victory is mine. It looks like your prize is the ability to post nonsense to USENET. Use it well, grasshopper. [...]
From: artful on 20 Feb 2010 22:19 On Feb 21, 1:25 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:5c5c476a-fba3-4710-b362-136b17ca1545(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Feb 16, 11:25 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 > > > ...and you are still an autistic imbecile. You "rock", Arindam. Your > > brain is a real "rock". > > heh-heh. Abuse from fools does not vindicate my theory, though. I have already retuted your claims. Your ignoring that does not make your thoery correct. > It does > however make it more solid to those few who are still of a scientific bent. Nope .. its just as wrong. > Certainly, what I need to do is to make an experiment to prove my theory. No need .. it is logically wrong. > Let us see, when that will happen. In the meantime, enjoy your loots from > the public purse, you cowardly no-name Gargy rascals.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 06:38
On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 1:25 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:5c5c476a-fba3-4710-b362-136b17ca1545(a)x1g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Feb 16, 11:25 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 > > > > ...and you are still an autistic imbecile. You "rock", Arindam. Your > > > brain is a real "rock". > > > heh-heh. Abuse from fools does not vindicate my theory, though. > > I have already retuted your claims. > You have not done that. Your ignoring that does not make > your thoery correct. I did give you some notice, as I remember. Your refutation was not logical. It was merely repetition of the standard points, and hand- waving. It completely ignored all the points I was making. At least Zinnic made some better attempt at diversion, by bringing in the notion of sound speed invariance. You are best ignored, as a consequence. > > It does > > however make it more solid to those few who are still of a scientific bent. > > Nope .. its just as wrong. > > > Certainly, what I need to do is to make an experiment to prove my theory. > > No need .. it is logically wrong. No it is not. You are merely making a negative statement. This attitude is not scientific! But then, only charlatans can support relativity - see, how the famous fraud jai maharaj is the biggest supporter you have got in Usenet? This internationally infamous lying astrologer is naturally the best person to defend so shonky a "scientific" theory as relativity. heh-heh-heh-heh Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. > > > > > Let us see, when that will happen. In the meantime, enjoy your loots from > > the public purse, you cowardly no-name Gargy rascals.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |