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 16:51 "Zinnic" <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote in message news:28518fa2-3ffd-4fc6-9a2b-3b88cbc3c041(a)l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... 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, AB: But the markers do NOT flow with the river. They are attatched to the river bed. This much is stated in the text book, if we are following the analogy. The river is the earth, the swimmers are the light, and the bank is the still ether. They are fixing the markers in the ETHER in the analogy,. as the river bed and the river bank are the same thing. To pretend that the markers flow with the river, when they do not as mentioned in the text, is dishonest. the analogy with INDEPENDENT movements of Earth and light thru a possible (imaginary?) aether medium is destroyed. AB: You are not making yourself clear to me. What is so obvious to you? See, in science we do not talk about subjective obvious feelings but state terms that make a particular and correct sense to all parties. Be more specific, if you can. You are being confusing. 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. AB: First of all, please admit that fixing the floats to the river bed was perfectly INCORRECT if we assume that the Earth is moving through the ether. Let us get this one straight at least. Yes, the original physicists did assume that the speed of light when discharged from earth was dependent on the speed of the earth through the ether. Just as in the analogy. That was an assumption all right. What they did not know then was that the light actually travelled a correspondingly greater or lesser distance, depending upon the orientation, as the Earth is moving. That is the new thing I found after research, and this finding changes everything. But in the analogy, the floats were stuck in the river bed or ether. In the MMI experiment, the apparatus was NOT stuck to ether. It was thus free floating. This difference is not resolved by the null result of the MMX. AB: The MMI experiment showed very clearly that no matter in what direction of light emission, the return time was always the same. They were keeping the same physical distance in all directions. What they did not know then was that light actually travelled more or less over those measured out distances, as the earth is moving! If we agree that the earth is moving, we have to agree that light has to travel more or less than the measured out distance. For once it has started at one end, by the time it reaches the other end, that other end has moved, since the earth is moving. This is the most subtle point you all are studiously ignoring. Now since the different distances along different angles are travelled in the same time, the velocity of light HAS to change with the different directions. In other words, there is no constant speed c. You need to provide exceptionally strong evidence to demonstrate that Einstein's theory is incorrect. AB: Nothing could be more exceptionally strong than what I have written in the above paragraph. Deductive logic is unbeatable. The conclusion is based upon the Earth's movement and the thoroughness of the MMI experimental work - these are the two assumptions upon which the deduction has been done. Pure geometry! The Earth moves; and the MMI experiment has been done very carefully for years, and is still the pillar for SR as it apparently gives direct experimental validity. Alas for the einsteinians, I have SO busted it! There are othe exceptionally strong evidence, like my new formula for mass and energy which outs the need for e=mcc to explain the energy generated from masses. It is far more intuitive - all energy generation (from the striking of a match, or any explosion, to the energy from the sun) is beautifully explained. However, since I have no regard for modern physicists, I am withholding publication until they learn better manners. To aid which process, I am working on metaphysics, currently. Jai and Artful know what they are talking about. Take notes! AB: I do not take notes from bullies, liars and frauds. Jai is a most outrageous liar, fraud, impostor and pest who has targeted me for years as I would not endorse his astrology racket. If they are your guides, I am sorry. I can understand why a shonky theory like SR needs the support of frauds and bullies, but you at least have been polite and so I would not like to place you in their sorry company. Now, what about that experiment with the sound speed stuff? Anyone interested? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee Regards Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 16:57 "artful" <artful_me(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:004bd738-e90a-447d-ae89-fbd5faca52e4(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com... 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. AB: The whole SR thing is a lie, and I have busted it. Naturally, liars do not like it, and resort to all sorts of character assassination. Like, Hawking was trying his best to character assassinate Newton in his lousy book. Do you want me to point out your bungling. I'm happy to go through your article and point out the mistake(s). AB: First point out what my points have been, then try your bit. Let us see if you have the wits to even understand what my points have been. It should not be too hard, for I have repeated them many times. Now let me hear them from your side. Try that first, and then we shall see how you debunk them! heh-heh. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 17:08 "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 AB: In principle the idea is good. Like, one way the sound travels faster (in theory) and another way it travels slower (in theory). Finding the difference in the arrival times from the 90 deg positions, and subtracting the rotation time for the 180 deg, should be telling. Try it by all means. set up will be tricky, though. Easy to make mistakes - the definitive thing will be to use radar and sonar, but then the Army folk must be appeased... Cheers, Arindam Banerjee.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 17:24 "spudnik" <Space998(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bf3348ed-5f93-4f5f-9725-44d6fc3623fc(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > gun & bullet is not at aall like emitter & wave, > both attached to the moving vehicele; > show the difference(s). What are you trying to say? > > 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
From: artful on 21 Feb 2010 17:32
On Feb 22, 8:57 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > "artful" <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:004bd738-e90a-447d-ae89-fbd5faca52e4(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > AB: The whole SR thing is a lie, and I have busted it. Naturally, liars do > not like it, and resort to all sorts of character assassination. Like, > Hawking was trying his best to character assassinate Newton in his lousy > book. > > Do you want me to point out your bungling. I'm happy to go through > your article and point out the mistake(s). > > AB: First point out what my points have been, Don't you know? > then try your bit. Let us see > if you have the wits to even understand what my points have been. of course i do .. and further have the wits to see you big bungle right at the start of the guts of your article (after your enormous text quote that is) > It should > not be too hard, for I have repeated them many times. Now let me hear them > from your side. Why do I need to repeat your arguments back to you? > Try that first, and then we shall see how you debunk them! > heh-heh. Seems rather pointless when I can simply debunk your article directly, without regurgitating your own fallacious arguments. Or are you trying to trick me so that you will then claim I agreed with your because I posted the same arguments as you? Basically you claim that the MMX is the sole basis for SR, and that it is the only experimental verification of SR. Both those assertions are wrong. Your claim that SR depends on the MMX being correct, however, is correct, as it depends on every experiment giving the results SR predicts. But as these experiments DO give the predicted results, SR is not refuted. You then use an incorrect and inappropriate analogy to analyse the MMX and incorrectly conclude that the motion of the Earth was not taken into account. That is blatantly wrong as the whole POINT and DESIGN of the MMX was to measure the motion of the earth wrt an aether .. it RELIED ON there being motion of the earth AND there being a simple fixed aether to get a non-null result. The null results means one of those requirements was not met. As clearly the earth has motion, the thing refuted was the existence of a simple fixed aether. Theories that claim such an aether exists are then refuted. Ballistic/Emission theory survied, as do LET and SR. All of these have light having a speed of c in all directions from a source. They differ in whether the speed of light from a moving source is measured as c by a non- moving observer (in some frame of reference). Other experiments refute ballistic theory, leaving only LET and SR as contenders. What follows in your article from there is not really relevant as it is based on a faulty argument (your bungle), so your so-called 'proof' that the speed of light is NOT constant etc is wrong. |