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 23 Feb 2010 07:19 On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - What is strange, is that an experiment to prove this most basic point is not any standard one! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 23 Feb 2010 07:55 On Feb 22, 1:35 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > Sorry, I accidentally posted the one prematurely.. continuing... > > > > > 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. > > > And the above happens because THE EARTH IS MOVING. > > Yes .. as a correct analysis of the experiment (such as the one in the > text you quote) shows Let us get this straight. Are you agreeing with me here? If you are, then you cannot agree that the MMInt experiment was analysed properly. Seems to me you do not understand my point at all. > > > Because the earth > > is moving, the light (whether seen as a wave or particle, is > > immaterial) HAS to travel a greater or longer distance than the > > measured out distance. > > Yes .. relative to the supposed fixed aether, as a correct analysis of > the experiment (such as the one in the text you quote) shows > > > FOR WHEN IT STARTS FROM ONE END, THE OTHER > > DESTINATION END HAS SHIFTED BY A CERTAIN DISTANCE CORRESPONDING TO THE > > TIME INTERVAL NEEDED TO COVER THAT DISTANCE. > > Yes .. relative to the supposed fixed aether, as a correct analysis of > the experiment (such as the one in the text you quote) shows > > > > > RELIED ON there being motion of the earth AND there being a simple > > > > fixed aether to get a non-null result. > > > True so far. But they were wrong. > > Nope. You are .. because the analogy you use for YOUR analysis is > incorrect > > > For, there was no way they could > > find out the ether drift simply because they could never put a marker > > in the fixed ether. > > They don't need to. AS the text you quote explains .. and as your own > explanation above says .. the difference in distances will mean > (according to the aether theory) a difference in travel times, and so > you shouldget a non-null result .. the amount of difference from the > null gives lets you calculate the speed ot the drift. > > > It was a hopeless effort to begin with. > > Nope.. it was perfectly designed. > > > You > > could put a marker in the river bed, > > Which corresponds to the earth > > > but you cannot fix the apparatus > > in the ether. > > Which corresponds to the river. And you do not NEED to, because > instead you can look at the time take in one direction compared with > that of the direction at right angles to it > > > > The null results means one of > > > > those requirements was not met. > > > As I now see (as they did not) the null results happened because they > > DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT > > THAT THE LIGHT ***HAD*** TO MOVE A GREATER OR LESSER DISTANCE THAN THE > > MEASURED DISTANCES ALONG VARIOUS ORIENTATIONS. > > Wrong.. that is EXACTLY what they used to predict a non-nujll > result .. as the text you quote correctly explains. But there WAS no > such non-null result > > > They had no idea > > about this, for this is MY recent (well, a few years ago I posted > > about this in Usenet) finding. > > It is you MISTAKE > > > > > As clearly the earth has motion, the > > > > thing refuted was the existence of a simple fixed aether. > > > As clearly the earth has motion, > > Yes > > > so clearly the LIGHT HAD TO MOVE A > > GREATER OR LESSER DISTANCE THAN THE MEASURED DISTANCES ALONG VARIOUS > > ORIENTATIONS. > > So you keep yellling .. and that is what the MMX relied on, as per the > correct explanation in the text you quote > > > Had they thought about this, they would have found that > > the null results were perfectly natural, > > They can't be .. because light has to move a greater or lesser > difference so there is going to be a difference in time (according to > the aether theory) > > > for then they DID NOT THINK > > THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS INVARIANT. > > Wrong .. they DEFINITELY though it was invariant wrt the fixed > aether. And that gives a non-null results in an MMX performed in a > lab that is motion wrt the aether. ie the speed of light in the lab > should NOT have been isoroptic (assording to the aether theory they > were using). > > > > > Theories > > > > that claim such an aether exists are then refuted. > > > Well, now they may be back again, following my finding. > > Nope.. you incorrect anlaysis does nothing for aether theory or for > science in general. And even less for you. > > > Light is a > > wave, and all waves need a medium, > > The 'medium' is the eletromagentic fields > > > and for all em waves aether is the > > conjectural medium. > > Nope. It is the electromagnetic fields > > > > > 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. > > > All irrelevant repetition, and they do not amount to a debunking of > > what I have written to debunk SR. > > You have not debunked SR ata ll .. just made a big blunder > > > I have taken the trouble to > > capitalise my findings, > > That's call SHOUTING > > > and while I am sure they will be disagreeable > > to you, > > No.. they are just wrong > > > please remember that we are talking about science here and not > > religion. > > I am talking science .. I'm not sure what you are talking about. > > > Science is always open to new ideas, new scopes, new > > interpretations > > Unless it is incorrect nonsense like your article > > > - unless it is corrupted by careerists without any > > merit. The Abominable Garg, that is. > > Unless corrupted by you > > > > > 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 > > > Hand-waving here. > > No .. if the assumptions upon which you base your argument are wrong > (they are). then what follows from it is irrelevant. > > > You have not once mentioned my point. > > i don't need to .. because everthing that follows from incorrect > assumptinos has no valid basis > > > I have however > > taken the liberty to doing so, in capitals. Hope it may penetrate > > your skull, but I doubt... > > Now.. are you ready to discuss your big mistake. Though from your > post above, it appears you have very little education and > understanding of physics. . but we might be able to convince you when > you see the errors .. if you have the honesty to admit it. So far, > your level of honesty and integrity is rather low.
From: artful on 23 Feb 2010 16:39 On Feb 23, 11:55 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 1:35 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [snip for brevity[ > Let us get this straight. Are you agreeing with me here? Clearly you have problems with comprehension and following well stated position and logical arguments. This is probably the root cause of you r failure to understand the MMX. > If you are, > then you cannot agree that the MMInt experiment was analysed > properly. Of course it was. But not by you > Seems to me you do not understand my point at all. I understand your point perfectly. . but it is based on an invalid foundation .. ie yiouir totally incorrect analogy Now .. would you like me to explain to you how the MMX works via a valid and relevant analogy, so you can see and correct the glaring mistake in the foundation of your argument? Note that that would honesty and intellectual integrity [snip for brevity[
From: Marshall on 24 Feb 2010 02:40 On Feb 22, 7:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > Zinnic That would certainly do it, but I suspect it might cost in the neighborhood of a million dollars, depending on the size of the mobile rocket. I was shooting for something much cheaper. I'm thinking I can do it with a six foot pole that rotates via a small motor. One end of the pole would have a speaker on it. The speaker would be driven by a tone generator, and turned on by a photo cell. To measure the velocity of sound, one would need two microphones and a laptop. Assuming I use the mics and laptops and so forth that I already have, I think I can do it for a few hundred dollars. It will probably take a few weeks to finish. Marshall
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 09:56
On Feb 23, 6:19 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What is strange, is that an experiment to prove this most basic point > is not any standard one! Anyone who has watched a car race from the stands does this experiment. This means that there are hundreds of thousands of spectator/experimenters every year. Is this not standard? |