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 18 Jan 2010 00:53 On Jan 4, 8:45 pm, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 11:33 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. > > Didn't even Newton say that there is no absolute frame of reference > and that all inertial frames of reference are equally "absolute"? According to the textbook I quoted from, the fixed frames of reference were the distant stars. The ether or the solid that fills the universe, is static and the original purpose of the MMI expt was to find the speed of the Earth wrt the ether. That was an impossible task, and led to all sorts of blunders. It is impossible to find a fixed frame of reference in the Universe (the distant stars are the closest) but it is possible to say that there is a fixed velocity wrt ether - which cannot be known, as everything moves in it! Very interesting, this point - it leads to metaphysics and that is just what I am presently invovled in, in my prose-poem, "The Birth of Ganesha". Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > > 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, 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. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > -- > > JM- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Arindam Banerjee on 18 Jan 2010 01:08 On Jan 8, 2:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. how irrelevant I was only looking for an honest man, found only one or two so far in the whole of usenet > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Arindam Banerjee on 18 Jan 2010 01:10 On Jan 8, 3:26 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > At this stage, the bright ideas claimed inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/home.htmdo 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%. Over what distance? Are you arguing that this 7% is true for *any* distance? What if the length is only 0.5 Km?
From: Arindam Banerjee on 18 Jan 2010 01:44 On Jan 8, 2:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Look at it this way. I have given away my IP to the world, unlike what you write about the cancer cure. What is my expectation? That 13+ kids will be influenced, positively, and escape the relativistic indoctrination. A few among them, anyway. For the elderly are corrupt; the young, not yet. So even if I do not do anything myself, some one among them will carry out my ideas after 10-15 years. I'll still be around then, with some luck. So, my wife and I can be booked on a trip to the moon and back, after 20 years. We are googling today, aren't we, and I developed the basics some 23 years ago in a publication, my one and only "A New Method for Partial- Match Retrievals". At that time I did not think that the work could be done in a 100 years - in those days the new and terrific 80286 processers were getting batched-up for supercomputing powers! Disinterested work does result in positive returns, and this is proved to us by this experience! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Dono. on 18 Jan 2010 01:57
On Jan 17, 10:44 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > Look at it this way. I have given away my IP to the world, unlike > what you write about the cancer cure. > What is my expectation? > That 13+ kids will be influenced, positively, and escape the > relativistic indoctrination. A few among them, anyway. For the > elderly are corrupt; the young, not yet. Oh, put a sock on it. Preferably a dirty one. |