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 19 Jan 2010 03:26 On Jan 19, 6:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Jan 19, 1:40 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> > That *only* monkeys of various sorts are around to defend the crappy > >> > ideas of einstein, is most revealing! > > >> > I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil > >> > and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long. > >> > And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds > >> > (13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering > >> > based upon my new physics. > > >> > Cheers, > > >> > Arindam Banerjee > > >> What makes you think you are aaany different from the the current batch > >> of morons who think relativity is wrong for many - always different - > >> reasons? > > > My points are brief and invincible, as evident. Detractors like you, > > thus, necessarily have to behave like monkeys. > > Had their been any honesty left among the corrupt and degraded Western > > elites, I would have been given the Nobel Prize in Physics very long > > ago. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > What, you think you are special because you failed to understand Einstein's > presentation of relativity? No, I am special because I have proved that his position based upon the correctness of the first postulate is wrong. > Relativity is SO(3,1) + Maxwell's equations. Done. Heh-heh, and What Rubbish. Relativity is based upon the invariance of the speed of light, with respect to the emitter. Without this (the first postulate) nothing further such as e=mcc, etc. can be derived. This is evident in all the standard texts which you and your kind seem happy to ignore, coming up with hand-waving one-liners instead. Still, what else can be done, now that I have pinpointed what bullshit the whole thing is? To repeat myself for the n'th time: 1. The Earth moves around the Sun 2. Because of the above, the light has to travel a greater or lesser distance than any measured distance. (Note: This is my original and most subtle point, which outs the whole construction of relativity, and had there been any ounce of fairness in the corrupt and degraded western elite, I should long ago have got the Nobel Prize in Physics for pointing this out) 3. Because nulls are found from the MMI experiment, showing equal time of travel in all directions for the same *measured* scalar lengths travelled (from above, the actual lengths travelled are different), the velocity of light *has* to be correspondingly greater or smaller, depending upon the direction of travel. Thus light going straight in front has speed c+v, going back is c-v, going sideways at right angles is c, and so on. Details are given in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm 4. Because of 3 (light has to be greater or lesser than c, depending upon v the emitting source's velocity) the first postulate of Einstein is wrong. 5. So, e=mcc and other weird stuff light matter being extremely short or heavy at near-ligjht speeds, is total bunkum. The whole thing is blown away, like a bad dream. All that modern physics now amounts to, is an extreme embarrassment. Note: The 5 points noted above are perfectly self-consistent. I do expect a talented 13+ year old to understand all that, and so the younger generation is my best hope. From the corrupt, motivated, cowardly and degraded bunch of institutionalised creeps, I expect no support. Not one crank on here has > actually sat down and said how their 'arguments' against Einstein's > derivation manage to hold in the group theory definition of SR which is the > one that is ACTUALLY USED. Typical einsteinian gobbledygook. Anyone with the slightest knowledge about the derivation of e=mcc can see through your deliberate dishonesty. Hoping (probably in vain) that you will grow up to be something straight, Arindam Banerjee - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 19 Jan 2010 05:24 Arindam Banerjee wrote: [...] >> What, you think you are special because you failed to understand >> Einstein's presentation of relativity? > > No, I am special because I have proved that his position based upon > the correctness of the first postulate is wrong. > >> Relativity is SO(3,1) + Maxwell's equations. Done. > > Heh-heh, and What Rubbish. Relativity is based upon the invariance of > the speed of light , with respect to the emitter. Without this (the > first postulate) nothing further such as e=mcc, etc. can be derived. SO(3,1) and Maxwell's equations. No principle of relativity needed. Oops. Not that your argument regarding the PoR was correct in the first place, but I find that this sidesteps your claims neatly. [snip rest, entirely unread]
From: Zinnic on 19 Jan 2010 08:25 On Jan 18, 5:02 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > That *only* monkeys of various sorts are around to defend the crappy > ideas of einstein, is most revealing! > > I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil > and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long. > And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds > (13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering > based upon my new physics. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee The speed of propagation of sound (S) in a medium is independent of the velocity (V) of the sound emittor. It is not (S + V) nor is it (S - V), it remains at S. Now explain to a 13 + kid (and me) the properties of the massless photon and space vacuum in your "new physics" that ensure the propagation of light through space is dependent on the velocity of the light emittor. Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jan 2010 01:22 On Jan 20, 12:25 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 18, 5:02 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > That *only* monkeys of various sorts are around to defend the crappy > > ideas of einstein, is most revealing! > > > I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil > > and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long. > > And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds > > (13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering > > based upon my new physics. > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > The speed of propagation of sound (S) in a medium is independent of > the velocity (V) of the sound emittor. It is not (S + V) nor is it (S > - V), it remains at S. Firstly, we are talking about the speed of light, not sound. So this is irrelevant, really. Still: But have you heard of the Doppler effect for sound? One minute of googling gave: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Sound/dopp.html If you go through the site, you will find that the changes in frequency (when a source is coming to you it has high frequency, when it goes past you it has lower frequency) is caused by an effective shortening in its wavelength. That is shown by v+v1 and v-v1, or changes to the speed of sound. I do not agree with the analysis there, so: Let us go through the first principles. frequency = velocity/wavelength Let the velocity of sound (assuming that it increases with the speed of emitter) be V+VS When the emitter is coming at you, then, the sound velocity from the emitter is V+VS. When it is going away, it is V - VS. Then the frequency you hear when the sound is coming to you is frequency_C = (V + VS)/wavelength = frequency + VS/wavelength - thus, a higher frequency is now heard. When the sound is going away from you, its speed towards you is less and so frequency_G = (V - VS)/wavelength = frequency - VS/wavelength - thus, a lower frequency is now heard. So what is the effective lengthening or shortening of the wavelength? This is a concept which is valid only when we take the implicit and tortuous position that the speed of sound is unchanged, and remains invariant with the speed of the transmitter. Like what the einsteinians are saying about light - nothing can exceed the speed of light! In the days before faster than sound travel, they were howling that dire consequences would happen if the sound barrier would be exceeded. Simply because they were positing that wavelength actually decreases (it does not, it only effectively decreases as the sound is now rushing by the sink faster). So the formula you can see in the site f" = f * v/(v - v") raised many questions - at v = v" the frequency would be infiinite, things would shatter, etc. That was the sound barrier, now comprehensively broken, every day! As the einsteinian light barrier will be, in 20 years. However, with the formulas you can see above, there is no question whatsoever about the so-called and phony sound barrier. In modern text books, the ruling einsteinians go all out to prove invariance of not just light but also sound, so for sound there is trickery involved in making it appear that the speed of sound is invariant with the source, even though their formulas have to indicate otherwise! Yes, the Doppler effect was confusing to my daughter when she did first year physics, so I explained it easily this way. Then advised her to forget it, and write what was expected, if she wanted to pass. As we all have to do... Cheers. Arindam Banerjee. However, all this is irrelevant to my main points, which I repeat once again: 1. The Earth is moving 2. All distances travelled by light are greater or lesser than the measured distance, because the Earth is moving - a Nobel Prize winning point! 3. Because the times involved for travel are the same in all directions, the speed of light *has* to vary with the direction of its travel. Or in other words, the speed of light is NOT invariant. 4. Because the first postulate of SR is the invariance of the speed of light, when experiment proves that it actually is not invariant, the whole structure of relativity and its consequent predictions (enormous masses and zero length at light speeds) crumble to dust. With very very very positive consequences for humanity and also other life forms and objects on Earth (given sound and good political will and direction). Once this rubbish is removed, we can proceed to the new physics and its underlying technology following the simple and intuitve and correct relationship between mass and energy, that I derived from first principles ten years ago. Which has been proven by experiment - the lack of reaction in a rail gun. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee Now explain to a 13 + kid (and me) the > properties of the massless photon and space vacuum in your "new > physics" that ensure the propagation of light through space is > dependent on the velocity of the light emittor. > Zinnic
From: tbj.blue on 20 Jan 2010 02:15
On Jan 19, 6:25 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 18, 5:02 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > That *only* monkeys of various sorts are around to defend the crappy > > ideas of einstein, is most revealing! > > > I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil > > and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long. > > And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds > > (13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering > > based upon my new physics. > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > The speed of propagation of sound (S) in a medium is independent of > the velocity (V) of the sound emittor. It is not (S + V) nor is it (S > - V), it remains at S. Now explain to a 13 + kid (and me) the > properties of the massless photon and space vacuum in your "new > physics" that ensure the propagation of light through space is > dependent on the velocity of the light emittor. > Zinnic Not taking sides here, but light has corpuscular properties while sound doesn't. There are no sound particles. Photons have momentum. A particle would likely be affected by the speed of its transmitter while a pure wave would likely not. |