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 21 Feb 2010 08:51 On Feb 21, 6:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > Arindam, It is obvious to me that when the markers flow with the river, the analogy with INDEPENDENT movements of Earth and light thru a possible (imaginary?) aether medium is destroyed. This modification (free floating markers) assumes that the speed of light thru the aether is DEPENDENT on the speed of the Earth thru the aether. This difference is not resolved by the null result of the MMX. You need to provide exceptionally strong evidence to demonstrate that Einstein's theory is incorrect. Jai and Artful know what they are talking about. Take notes! Regards Zinnic
From: Marshall on 21 Feb 2010 12:24 On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > 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, This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of having a controlled, in-motion emitter. I have two thoughts: 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide linear speed but seems hard to control. 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter. It also has the advantage that you could compare the time difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits at any point on its circular trajectory. Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. Marshall
From: Androcles on 21 Feb 2010 13:01 "Marshall" <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1cffeab4-c313-42dc-a569-7d287dd44853(a)m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > 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, This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of having a controlled, in-motion emitter. I have two thoughts: 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide linear speed but seems hard to control. 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter. It also has the advantage that you could compare the time difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits at any point on its circular trajectory. Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. Marshall ============================================ Small vehicle = steam engine. speaker = whistle. Listen carefully: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpXt7QX0NZM Oh... by the way, to those on the train the platform was moving, but nobody blew their own trumpet. Professor Doppler did, and had a musician on the train tell him what note he heard. What he found was f' = f * c/(c+v) for those on the platform and f' = f * (c+v)/c for those on the train. If the wind had been blowing at 75 mph along with the train he would have found those two equations were reversed. That was a fun science project.
From: spudnik on 21 Feb 2010 16:16 niether Einstein nor textbooks were perfect, but he seems to beleive that the M&M experiment was not about the relative interferometry between opposite directions of Earth's orbit -- and it was not a "null," and taht was refined by others, after (see Cahill's God-am graph). oh, yes; hte anomalies were very small, and what wouold you make of that? > 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 --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 21 Feb 2010 16:33
gun & bullet is not at aall like emitter & wave, both attached to the moving vehicele; show the difference(s). thus: the photographic record that I saw, in some rather eclectic compendium of Einsteinmania, seemed to show quite an effect, I must say; not that the usual interpretation is correct, though. > > "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." --Another Flower for Einstein: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice |