Prev: finding parametric equations
Next: Documents of Project DoD Federici DMCA Takedown lawsuit now available
From: eric gisse on 7 Jan 2010 18:56
Just Me wrote:

> 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!

Personally I've always found this logic interesting, as there are two
complementary and usually simultaneous schools of thought in play:

a) "My paper has been ignored for years. That means scientists have no
rebuttal so I must be right!"

and b) "Scientists have been telling me for years that I am wrong. If I was
wrong they wouldn't waste so much time on me, so I must be right!"

[...]
From: Arindam Banerjee on 8 Jan 2010 02:16
On Jan 4, 1:49 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 3:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Please stop using any technology based on modern physics, since you
> think it is wrong.
>
> David A. Smith

How is this relevant to my article debunking the first postulate of
Einstein's SR?

Well, if you like those treacherous baboons jBm and co. do not
understand what I wrote, that is okay. I do not expect everyone to
understand this debunking, for one has to possess a high degree of
proficiency in the English language, and also some mathematics,
ability to read simple diagrams, etc.

Nevertheless, you do raise an interesting point, if by modern physics
you mean anything resulting from e=mcc stuff.

I have worked as a professional engineer for 30 years, in antennas,
radar, telecom, computers, etc. and in no area of useful activity did
involve this e=mcc nonsense. The technologies all resulted from the
theories of Newton and Maxwell.

The public mind is shaped by the atom bomb, and that is said to result
from e=mcc. Also, there is hope that we will get unlimited energy
from nuclear fusion, and we do have fission.

But, all these have nothing whatsoever to do with e=mcc, or in other
words, relativity. I have already shown how the atom bomb and in fact
every explosion can be intuitively shown by my new mathematical
formula linking mass and energy. I have derived this equation ten
years ago, published it in usenet, wrote a book "To the Stars!" based
upon it... And recently the theory has been validated by experiment,
in the US. Where it has been shown that the reaction from a rail gun
does not exist as an opposing force - it is applied orthogonally.
This experiment blasts the third law of Newton, and also the law of
conservation of energy, and makes it possible to have internal force
engines that can propel any craft to unlimited speeds, in outer space.

The sooner we ditch the relativity nonsense, the better.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Adda Enterprises
http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInit/MMint.htm
From: Arindam Banerjee on 8 Jan 2010 03:14

Dear Just Me,
Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
so.
Cheers,
Arindam

On Jan 4, 6:33 pm, Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "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
>
> In your monograph,  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."

AB: Yes, you have quoted me correctly. If you stick a float in the
river bed, then it is stuck on the unmoving river bank effectively.

> It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis
> for your entire theory.

AB: Okay, let us see what you have got.


You state that "the river is the Earth moving
> with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of
> reference."


AB: Again, you are quoting me correctly.

 It is quite clear, however that the river is not the
> "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift".

AB: Here I disagree. The river is the Earth, and the river bank is the
unmoving Ether. The Earth is drifting through the ether, just as the
river is drifting by the bank and the float too. So much is clear
from the text book itself. If you read the whole article, there
should be no doubt about this point. To make my point clear -
according to the ether theory, ether is a SOLID which is very fine,
and permeating all of space. Ether thus never moves. It cannot
drift, by definition. All bodies just go through the ether. So the
ether as a solid stays put, while all bodies go through it. I am not
saying anything new here. What I am saying is simply 19th century
physics, as mentioned in the textbook I have quoted.


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.


AB: Yes there is an ether sea as you put it, but if you read the text
a bit more carefully you will find that the ether is not fluid but a
SOLID by definition. That is, each part of the ether has a fixed
dimensional relationship with other parts, like any solid. So the
flow is *not* of ether, but of bodies in space that move in ether -
suns, planets, our own selves...


> 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.


AB: The experiment simply proved that the velocity of light changed
with the velocity of the emitter of light. In short, it proved that
the first postulate of Einstein is completely wrong. And with that
proved wrong, the whole structure of relativity and modern physics
crashes to the ground. Why?

***** If the Earth moves, then what is happening that light travels a
greater or longer distance, actually, than what is the measured
distance. ***** This is a most remarkable and original find, to which
I humbly take credit.

Just think about it. You measure out say a meter. Flash a light at
one end. By the time this light reaches the other end, that end has
moved a little bit since the Earth has moved over that period, so the
distance is not one meter, but more or less, save at just one angle.
So the light will have to travel a bit more distance, or less. I have
made this point clearly in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm

But since the speed of light also changes proportionately, that is, it
moves faster when it has to travel a longer distance, and slower when
it has to travel a shorter distance (like every other object that is
thrown from any moving platform) we simply have to get the null
results. We can only create a hoo-haa about relativity when we totally
ignore the fundamental point I have made here. Thus for the first
postulate to be valid, the Earth must be still with respect to the
solid ether - like, the floats anchored to the river bed, in the
analogy. However, no one seriously thinks that the Aristotlean model
is valid any more - that is, no one seriously holds that the Earth is
still and all else is moving...

So if we allow the Earth is moving, then light has to travel more or
less distances than what is measured out. Since we have nulls, the
only way we can have nulls is by having the speed of light to vary
with the speed of the emitter. In other words, the first postulate of
Einstein's SR is totally wrong, and e=mcc is bogus.

Only when the very important above fact is internalised by all who are
worthy and well-meaning, is there any point in my publishing my book
"Principles of Motion" which extends the ideas first presented in my
book "To the Stars!" I do hope good people will read it very
carefully, and think even more carefully, on this most important
point.


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.

AB: As I said, the null result shows nothing but the fact that the
light actually changes speed with respect to the emitter. You are
restating the original position, by ignoring what I wrote, and
misinterpreting the meaning of ether as it existed in the 19th
century. To repeat, ether is a solid. It cannot flow.


> 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.

AB: Again, you are saying that ether flows, but it does not. Objects
flow through ether - by definition ether is a solid and all parts of
this ether always bear a constant spatial relationship with each
other, this being the fundamental characteristic of a solid. So, the
ether is the absolute reference, as it is unmoving.

However, ether or no ether, if the Earth moves, then the light has to
travel a greater or lesser (and in one angle, the same) distance as
the measured out distance. Just like you throw a ball in a moving
train. To the people in the train, it does not matter which way the
train is moving. But to an outside on the non-moving track, the ball
always travels a greater or lesser distance, at greater or lesser
speeds.


> 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.

AB: Of course, if you persist in considering ether to be a flowing
thing and not a solid, there is no further argument! All I want to
say is that according to the ether theory ether is a solid that fills
the entire universe. All the electromagnetic waves use this ether for
propagation - all the masses flow through this medium. Because ether
is infinitely fine, this can happen.

Your point above is not clear to me. Except that you do not seem to
like the analogy. That is very well. but so long as you do not
dispute that light has to travel greater or lesser distances when the
Earth is moving, you cannot but agree with me in that the first
postulate is wrong, and as wrong as can be.


It is an instant in time
> relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on
> the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the
> ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a
> clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that
> position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by
> the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light.

AB: You have to be a lot more detailed, if you want to put up
countering ideas. So far you have not even addressed my point, that
is, that light *has* to travel greater or lesser distances when the
Earth is moving.

>
> The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or
> perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy
> expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of
> energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy
> expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no
> ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the
> same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite
> "clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or
> constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the
> quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not
> reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity.

AB: At this stage, energy is irrelevant. What I am saying is that if
the Earth moves, the light has to travel a greater or lesser distance
with respect to the fixed measured out distance.
>
> The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at
> the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of
> reference or it will not.  There was no such new absolute frame of
> reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was
> only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute.

AB: MMI experiment only proved that the velocity of light is *not*
constant, and that it changes with the speed of the emitter. This it
did by ignoring the well-accepted fact that the Earth, it moves.

Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, the Galileo of our time!
> --
> JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Arindam Banerjee on 9 Jan 2010 23:10

"Just Me" <jpdm45(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46eac66b-fcbf-49cd-a6df-4ada16ecb5e8(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
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.

AB: Dear Just Me, tell me how much room for respect you have for those who
attack Israel? I hold that the einsteinians are the biggest hindrances to
science, technology and the good life - so why should I have any more
respect for them than you show for those who attack Israel and Jews?

And the whole thing is based on one perfectly absurd error of
interpretation, as posted previously but here with amendments and
excisions . . .

AB: No, not at all. I have pointed out your own errors in another article.
With the kind of scientific and technical background that I have acquired
over the last 40 years of study and service, I believe any thinking person
will side with me, provided he is not biased due to financial or other
reasons. Point is, Just Me, what chance have I of getting a decent court of
law to give a ruling declaring the theories of relativity to be utter
bullshit? I think, it is a very good one, as they cannot or should not go
by character assassination, hand-waving, appeals to institutional authority
(well, this is the biggest support of the einsteinians and we have to see
how much the mere statement-type words of hawking weigh with legality),
numerous so-called authorities etc. but by simple English grammar, facts and
logic. Hmm, will be an interesting court case, will any one in the legal
profession take it up? The pickings will be great, for the textbooks will
have to be rewritten! Hmm, and with the cut I get from copyright etc. I
should make my HTN and IFE... Anyway, never mind, within 2-3 years I
believe I will make a working model of the IFE and then the whole thing will
*have* to crash like any insecure house of cards. In the meantime, make hay
while you can, o einsteinians! There are still so many fools who will
*believe* you and more importantly lavishly fund your absurd ventures!

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

- snip-


From: Dono. on 9 Jan 2010 23:23
On Jan 9, 8:10 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> Anyway, never mind, within 2-3 years I
> believe I will make a working model of the IFE and then the whole thing will
> *have* to crash like any insecure house of cards.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/beckerjmb/homeless-box.jpg
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: finding parametric equations
Next: Documents of Project DoD Federici DMCA Takedown lawsuit now available