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: Dono. on 7 Jan 2010 09:50 On Jan 7, 12:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > What next? http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
From: PD on 7 Jan 2010 10:55 On Jan 7, 2:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public > > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by > > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they > > will not be based upon rocketry. > > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. > > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as > > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the > > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > Hampton Park, Australia > > Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper > showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it > that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed > international scrutiny. Over years and years! OK, let me tell you what this is like. This is like claiming that you have found a cure for cancer. Then to test whether your claim is correct, you walk into the lobby of a medical insurance company and holler to everyone standing there, "I have a cure for cancer! Now is your chance to prove that it's not!" And if you are ignored in the lobby of an office building, you tell yourself that you've given the world a chance to prove you wrong, and they didn't, so you must be right, and could somebody please award you some fame for having cured cancer now. > > What next? > > Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to > object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in > other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system? Do > we pay taxes to our governments so that our children are taught to > believe in pure lies, nonsense and the resulting incomprehensible > gobbledygook? > > Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if > no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world, > I myself will give it a go! Too easy, though. I would much rather > spend my time with the HTN and IFE. Nevertheless, short cuts need not > be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. Hmm, going to a > court of law, sounds the right thing to do. Let a professional judge > decide on what is essentially a legal matter. In fact, the most > fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of > nature!. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee.
From: John Stafford on 7 Jan 2010 11:26 At this stage, the bright ideas claimed in http://adda-enterprises.com/home.htm do not deserve a thorough critique. The author might begin by reviewing his claims to fact. For example, high power electrical lines do not have a 70% loss, but about 7%.
From: A. Banshee on 7 Jan 2010 12:09 <snip nutcake rant> > > > > > Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if > > no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world, > > I myself will give it a go! =A0Too easy, though. =A0I would much rather > > spend my time with the HTN and IFE. =A0Nevertheless, short cuts need > > not be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. =A0Hmm, going > > to a court of law, sounds the right thing to do. =A0Let a professional > > judge decide on what is essentially a legal matter. =A0In fact, the > > most fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of > > nature!. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee. *Boing* Coo-Coo! Coo-Coo!!
From: Just Me on 7 Jan 2010 18:43
On Jan 7, 2:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper . . .. > showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it > that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed > international scrutiny. Over years and years! That's the trouble with you and your paper, Banerjee, both are so full of "self-respect" that there's room for the respect of no one else. And the whole thing is based on one perfectly absurd error of interpretation, as posted previously but here with amendments and excisions . . . In your monograph . . . http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm You make the following statement . . . "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of v, so that its net velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0." It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis for your entire theory. You state that "the river is the Earth moving with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference." It is quite clear, however that the river is not the "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift". As the river analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself, or i.e. the flow of the river. The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference. This fact completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays. The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference" is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks, and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether, as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the analogy. The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water, and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial location outside the flow is irrelevant. It is an instant in time relative to a position in flow (or no-flow). But let us go further. More than that float should represent a mechanical or atomic clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in the hypothetical flow", time as Newton understood it becomes irrelevant, being defined now as an event given by the energy, the wave generated in the water by the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light: "time" is now a product of two things coincidentally in motion: waves and ether.. Given this view, the "clock" is not one of hands and a dial-face powered by springs and gears, but a system of coordinates defined by light waves moving in the flow of hypothetical ether (or no flow)-- depending upon the outcome of the experiment. Given this view, the concept of Einstein's "space-time" begins to make more than mathematical sense, alone. Now it is seen that "time" is a kind of space; a dimension of space (as space is also a dimension of time) which can only be so if space itself is seen as being not static but in a state of flow--hence the "ether sea". But why the demand for the ether to be in flow? Clearly, the physicists who first conceived the theory understood something about wave mechanics which made it essential. And what might that be but the insistence that waves, in order to be manifest, must be a product of two (or more than one) motion: there must be two things in motion to make a wave. What you are seeing in a wave is the formation of an action/reaction manifestion--fully in accord with Newton's Third Law of Motion. But what about the waters of a still pond, will you ask? No such thing as a still pond. The pond itself is in motion of rotation with the earth. The waves generated in its surface are a visible expression of terrestrial motion. In like fashion, the atmosphere of the earth which is said to "carry" sound waves is actually doing no such thing. Rather, the motion of the terrestrial atmosphere in combination with a motion of shock energy from some impulse together work to produce waves of sound. This is the very heart of the Theory of Relativity, which as Einstein himself reconsidered it, in at least one lecture he gave . . . http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt He puts forth the possibility that Relativity does not replace the ether theory but reveals it for what it really is: gravity/inertia acting both on bodies and energy in spacetime. Hence, the General Theory. -- JM |