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: spudnik on 21 Feb 2010 17:39 I am asking, what is the difference between a wave & a particle, launched from a moving thing, as well as what is the same? thus: advice to self: quit uselessnet! > Take your own advice. thus: his main problem is being inculcated with the Secular Church of England, Newtonianism, whereas the importance of calculus lies with Leibniz; virtually all of the "controversy" was created by Newton, rubberstamped by the Royal Society, and was a political attack against a lone protoganist ... who happened to have been being considered to be the Prime Minister of England. thus: correct, I am not a certified physicist; have a nice life, banging-away at the spooks! > the retina is composed of antannae; > how does your wave-bullet thingy aim itself at it -- > aside from already being properly tuned? thus: gun & bullet is not at all like emitter & wave, former of both attached to the moving vehicle; 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, and Nude Scientist is constantly over-reaching, in any case. "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 Cheeny, the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan; no more Anglo-american quagmires! http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 19:58 On Feb 22, 9:39 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I am asking, > what is the difference between a wave & a particle, > launched from a moving thing, as well > as what is the same? A wave is a moving disturbance among particles of a medium; the particles of the medium do not move from their positions, only oscillate around it. A paricle has mass, and moves with a certain velocity with respect to a particular object. Just as the particle has velocity, the wave (a disturbance that moves) has velocity with respect to a particular object. To ilustrate the point, consider this rhyme given in the textbook "Communication Engineering" by Everitt and Anner, 3rd ed, p 230. This chapter will be interested in the wave which is a function of both time and space. An illustration of such a wave is provided by the dachshund: There was a dachshund once so long Clear? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > thus: > advice to self: quit uselessnet! > > > Take your own advice. > > thus: > his main problem is being inculcated with the Secular Church of > England, > Newtonianism, whereas the importance of calculus lies with Leibniz; > virtually all of the "controversy" was created by Newton, > rubberstamped by the Royal Society, and was a political attack > against a lone protoganist ... who happened to have been > being considered to be the Prime Minister of England. > > thus: > correct, I am not a certified physicist; > have a nice life, banging-away at the spooks! > > > the retina is composed of antannae; > > how does your wave-bullet thingy aim itself at it -- > > aside from already being properly tuned? > > thus: > gun & bullet is not at all like emitter & wave, > former of both attached to the moving vehicle; > 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, and > Nude Scientist is constantly over-reaching, in any case. > > "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/Electrodynami... > > --les OEuvres!http://wlym.com > > --Stop Cheeny, the Rice-ists & the ICC in Sudan; > no more Anglo-american quagmires!http://larouchepub.com/pr/2010/100204rice
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 20:02 On Feb 22, 11:58 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:39 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I am asking, > > what is the difference between a wave & a particle, > > launched from a moving thing, as well > > as what is the same? > > A wave is a moving disturbance among particles of a medium; the > particles of the medium do not move from their positions, only > oscillate around it. > A paricle has mass, and moves with a certain velocity with respect to > a particular object. > Just as the particle has velocity, the wave (a disturbance that moves) > has velocity with respect to a particular object. > > To ilustrate the point, consider this rhyme given in the textbook > "Communication Engineering" by Everitt and Anner, 3rd ed, p 230. > > This chapter will be interested in the wave which is a function of > both time and space. An illustration of such a wave is provided by > the dachshund: > There was a dachshund once so long He hadn't any notion How long it took to notify Hi tail of an emotion. And so it was that though his eyes Were filled with woe and sadness His little tail went wagging on Because of previous gladness So we see, the particles in the dachshund stay put and convey the emotion (wave, disturbance) from the head to the tail. > Clear? Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 20:39 On Feb 22, 9:32 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? I know, but do you? > > > 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? Because I would need to know that you have understood them. > > > 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, You can show your displeasure. That does not amount to a debunking. > 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? I am not trying to trick anyone. I am only trying to point out that a great bungle had been made, and we have suffered heavily for it. Correcting it will lead to a much better world. > 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. Historically, MMI is the definitely the main and sole basis for SR to begin with, as it gave the idea that the speed of light is independent upon the speed of the emitter. It was thus the first postulate for SR, based upon which Einstein derived the famous e=mcc. These are facts mentioned in every textbook. I have stated all the above, yes. > Your claim that SR depends on the MMX being correct, however, is > correct, as it depends on every experiment giving the results SR > predicts. That entirely depends upon the analysis. I have pointed out the great bungle involved. If people like you do not want to see it, that is their business. The early experimenters made a wrong analysis, which I have corrected. That is what my entire paper is all about. To expose the wrong analysis. > But as these experiments DO give the predicted results, SR > is not refuted. Merely repeating the same mistake for generartions, has been the cause of a lot of evils. > 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. The analogy was in the textbook. It was not mine. True, there was a bungle there, like putting the floats in the riverbed. Yes that was the bungle, and the same bungle was extended to the MMI experimental analysis. To be precise, they effectively rooted the apparatus in the ether, but actually it was on the Earth which is moving. > That is blatantly wrong as the whole POINT and DESIGN > of the MMX was to measure the motion of the earth wrt an aether .. Correct, and this is just what I have said. The point was to measure the motion of the earth in aether. So on that basis they did think that the Earth was moving. BUT WHAT THEY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WAS THAT THE LIGHT HAD TO MOVE A GREATER OR LESSER DISTANCE THAN THE MEASURED DISTANCES ALONG VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS. 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 21 Feb 2010 20:53
On Feb 22, 12:39 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 9:32 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > I know, but do you? Clearly I do ..as I have pointed them out. > > > 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? > > Because I would need to know that you have understood them. I understood them, but they are wrong, because their foundation is wrong. > > > 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, > > You can show your displeasure. That does not amount to a debunking. Indeed it doesn't .. which is why I pointed out YOUR MISTAKES > > 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? > > I am not trying to trick anyone. I am only trying to point out that a > great bungle had been made, Yes. . by YOU > and we have suffered heavily for it. Yes .. by you inflicting your erroneous article on us. > Correcting it will lead to a much better world. Yes .. correcting your article will do so (in a very tine way, as your article is not really that important to anyone other than yourself > > 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. > > Historically, MMI is the definitely the main and sole basis for SR to > begin with, Nope > as it gave the idea that the speed of light is independent > upon the speed of the emitter. No .. it doesn't show that at all. In fact, it is perfectly consistent with the speed of light being dependent on the speed of the emitter (ie ballistic / emission theory) > It was thus the first postulate for > SR, based upon which Einstein derived the famous e=mcc. No .. the constant speed of light regardless of speed of source was the second postulate. Not the first. > These are > facts mentioned in every textbook. No .. they are your misunderstandings. MMX is not the sole basis for SR at all. SR is consistent with it and explains it, of coruse. > I have stated all the above, yes. But your claims are erroneous. MMX is NOT the sole foundation for SR, nor is it the only expeirmental evidence supporting SR. To state that is a lie. > > Your claim that SR depends on the MMX being correct, however, is > > correct, as it depends on every experiment giving the results SR > > predicts. > > That entirely depends upon the analysis. Nope > I have pointed out the great > bungle involved. No .. yhou MADE a great bungle in your analysis > If people like you do not want to see it, that is > their business. I see the bungle in your analysis very clearly. > The early experimenters made a wrong analysis, No > which > I have corrected. NO .. you got it wrong > That is what my entire paper is all about. In know that .. and you got it wrong > To > expose the wrong analysis. You paper IS the wrong analysis > > But as these experiments DO give the predicted results, SR > > is not refuted. > > Merely repeating the same mistake for generartions, has been the cause > of a lot of evils. There have been many many different experiment testing SR .. it passed every single one of them. There is no a single experiment that refutes SR > > 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. > > The analogy was in the textbook. No .. not the analogy you used. > It was not mine. Yes .. it was. you changed it > True, there was a > bungle there, Yes .. you bungled .. that is the main source of all your bungling. > like putting the floats in the riverbed. Yes that was > the bungle, and the same bungle was extended to the MMI experimental > analysis. yes ... YOUR bungle. . you got it completely wrong. Even a child could see that. > To be precise, they effectively rooted the apparatus in the > ether, No .. they did NOT. The put it at rest on earth which (they thought) was moving thru the fixed ether.. But no such movement was detected .. which (as we know the earth is moving) rules out the fixed aether. > but actually it was on the Earth which is moving. Exactly .. but your analysis has it BACKWARDS. YOU put the experiment fixed in the aether in your analysis. > > That is blatantly wrong as the whole POINT and DESIGN > > of the MMX was to measure the motion of the earth wrt an aether .. > > Correct, and this is just what I have said. No .. you got it wrong > The point was to measure > the motion of the earth in aether. Yes .. and it was perfectly designed to do that > So on that basis they did think > that the Earth was moving. NO .. on the basis of existing information (eg the rotation of the earth and its orbit around the sun) > BUT WHAT THEY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT > WAS THAT THE LIGHT HAD TO MOVE A GREATER OR LESSER DISTANCE THAN THE > MEASURED DISTANCES ALONG VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS. That is EXACTLY what they took into account. > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Now .. do you want me to point out exactly WHY the analogy that you mangled and got backward was incorrect (even though the version in the text was correct)? |