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: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 07:02 On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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. So why not set up an experiment to prove this one way or the other, instead of making dogmatic assertions like above? He has yet to demonstrate that it does hold for light. > Zinnic If the earth is moving, then deductive logic has it that the MMI experiment proves that the velocity of light has to be dependent upon the velocity of the emitter. I have made this possible for intelligent kids to understand. Pity that some grown-up kids do not get it! But then grown-ups have their own interests to consider. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 07:03 On Feb 10, 5:25 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. True. There are no photons, or rocks of light. However there are bigots and racists, stewed in hypocrisy, that pose as scientists. > > --les OEuvres!http://wlym.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 07:05 On Feb 9, 11:23 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 You are a liar. The article is painstakingly correct, it quotes from a text book, and then goes on to debunk the stuff in the textbook by finding out a new fact that had been overlooked by earlier researchers. > > > 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 No, you are a liar. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 21 Feb 2010 07:15 On Feb 21, 11:05 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > You are a liar. Nope > The article is painstakingly correct, Painful to read, but it is not correct > it quotes from a > text book, Yeup .. that is the only correct part > and then goes on to debunk the stuff in the textbook To ATTEMPT to debunk it .. but it fails because the logic is faulty. > by > finding out a new fact that had been overlooked by earlier > researchers. No new fact is presented > > > 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 > > No, you are a liar. Nope .. never lied at all. Do you want me to point out your bungling. I'm happy to go through your article and point out the mistake(s).
From: John Stafford on 21 Feb 2010 08:24
Me gosh, it's the Flat Earthers again! http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm |