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: Zinnic on 20 Jan 2010 08:49 On Jan 20, 12:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Your response is all SOUND (and FURY?). Where is the LIGHT? Most of us conversant with the Doppler effect in sound transmissionan do not need your lesson in high school physics. Why have you ignored my question re the relationships between photons and space in your new physics? My understanding is that, provided I am not moving and despite a change in frequency, a toot from a train travelling towards or away from me will arrive at my ear in the same time as does a toot from a stationary train. This is easily checked and, when when proved correct (as I believe), clearly demonstrates that the speed of sound in air is constant as described by:- V(sound) = frequency(up or down) X wavelength(down or up). The propagation of sound from a train is by sequential compression of the air medium. Consider also the propagation of a ripple through a water medium. Could you explain in terms of your new physics how light is propagated through space (medium?). That is a lesson I will find most informative! Regards Zinnic.
From: paparios on 20 Jan 2010 11:46 On 20 ene, 03:22, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Jan 20, 12:25 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > 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). > The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is clearly explained in several relativity books. The following explanation is provided by Landau and Lifshitz: "... The interaction of material particles is described in ordinary mechanics by means of a potential energy of interaction, which appears as a function of the coordinates of the interacting particles. It is easy to see that this manner of describing interactions contains the assumption of instantaneous propagation of interactions. For the forces exerted on each of the particles by the other particles at a particular instant of time depend, according to this description, only on the positions of the particles at this one instant. A change in the position of any of the interacting particles influences the other particles immediately. However, experiment shows that instantaneous interactions do not exist in nature. Thus a mechanics based on the assumption of instantaneous propagation of interactions contains within itself a certain inaccuracy. In actuality, if any change takes place in one of the interacting bodies, it will influence the other bodies only after the lapse of a certain interval of time. It is only after this time interval that processes caused by the initial change begin to take place in the second body. Dividing the distance between the two bodies by this time interval, we obtain the velocity of propagation of the interaction. We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the maximum velocity of propagation of interaction. It determines only that interval of time after which a change occurring in one body begins to manifest itself in another. It is clear that the existence of maximum velocity of propagation of interactions implies, at the same time, that motions of bodies with greater velocity than this are in general impossible in nature. For if such a motion could occur, then by means of it one could realize an interaction with a velocity exceeding the maximum possible velocity of propagation of interactions. Interactions propagating from one particle to another are frequently called "signals", sent out from the first particle and "informing" the second particle of changes which the first has experienced. The velocity of propagation of interaction is then referred to as the signal velocity. From the principle of relativity it follows in particular that the velocity of propagation of interactions is the same in all inertial systems of reference. Thus the velocity of propagation of interactions is a universal constant. This constant velocity (as we shall show later) is also the velocity of light in empty space. The velocity of light is usually designated by the letter c, and its numerical value is c=300000 km/sec. The large value of this velocity explains the fact that, in practice, classical mechanics appears to be sufficiently accurate in most cases. The velocities with which we have occasion to deal are usually so small compared with the velocity of light that the assumption that the latter is infinite does not materially affect the accuracy of the results. The combination of the principle of relativity with the finiteness of the velocity of propagation of interactions is called the principle of relativity of Einstein (it was formulated by Einstein in 1905) in contrast to the principle of relativity of Galileo, which was based on an infinite velocity of propagation of interactions ..." Miguel Rios
From: Zinnic on 20 Jan 2010 19:52 On Jan 20, 7:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Jan 20, 12:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Your response is all SOUND (and FURY?). Where is the LIGHT? Most of > us conversant with the Doppler effect in sound transmissionan do not > need your lesson in high school physics. Why have you ignored my > question re the relationships between photons and space in your new > physics? > > My understanding is that, provided I am not moving and despite a > change in frequency, a toot from a train travelling towards or away > from me will arrive at my ear in the same time as does a toot from a > stationary train. > This is easily checked and, when when proved correct (as I believe), > clearly demonstrates that the speed of sound in air is constant as > described by:- > V(sound) = frequency(up or down) X wavelength(down > or up). > > The propagation of sound from a train is by sequential compression of > the air medium. Consider also the propagation of a ripple through a > water medium. Could you explain in terms of your new physics how > light is propagated through space (medium?). That is a lesson I will > find most informative! > Regards > Zinnic.- Hide quoted text - > In a previous post, Arandim claimed that 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. It matters little whether aether (as a biochemist I prefer this spelling; ether tends to cloud the mind) as a solid, liquid or gas. The important issue is that he defines aether as a medium for the propagation of photon waves or particles. This implies that the aether medium is disturbed by light in such a manner that the light disturbance is transmitted through the medium, without net movement of the medium in the direction of the transmission, until it is observed by a sensitive recipient (eye/nervous tissue complex). This seems to be analogous to the mechanisms by which sound is transmitted in air (or other media) or ripples transmitted in liquids. I need to be assured that a very short blast of sound (eg a train toot) emitted by a source moving away will be heard significantly later than the same sound emitted by a source moving towards one. I believe this is not so. Only if such a delay is established is it relevant to discuss Arandim's claim that the maximum speed of light in a vacuum is dependent on the motion of its source, His claim that a disturbance of an aether medium propagates light seems to favor that, like sound, the speed of propagation is dependent only on the nature of whatever, if any, is the medium. Zinnic
From: spudnik on 21 Jan 2010 14:24 a) there is only relative "vacuum" -- think of it as a verb; b) there are no "photons," at all, except for some sort of interpretation of the wave, being absorbed by an electronic device or emulsion. --les OEuvre! http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 21 Jan 2010 14:27
really. until light was found to "have" a speed, there was no reason to presume "faster than instantaneous travel;" it took a while after Roemer clocked it, to make the sci-fi leap! --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com |