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: glird on 7 Feb 2010 12:16 On Jan 20, 11:46 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. Not so, Papa. Even Einstein realized that the velocity of signal transmission is NOT the same in any inertially moving systems. In order to obey the principle of relativity, he had to change the definition of "synchronous clocks". Instead of meaning "clocks that have identical settings" it became "clocks set to measure the speed of light as constant in any and all directions". That ignored the fact that he KNEW that the average two-way speed of light-signals is different in X' compared to Y' and Z' and that the one-way speed in the x' direction is different than it is in the -x' direction, and that both are different from that in the y' or z' directions, where X' is the direction of motion of system X', Y', Z' in the "empty space" in which he postulated that c is a constant. glird
From: glird on 7 Feb 2010 13:49 On Jan 20, 7:52 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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 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. > > > > 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 (SV), 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 at: ... 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. {How is f" infinite if f * v/(v - v") = f * v/0?} 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. However, all this is irrelevant to my main points, which I repeat once again: 1. The Earth is moving 2. All distances traveled by light are greater or less 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 {AS MEASURED by ESYNCHED systems!!!}, 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 fxixrxst {second} 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 intuitive 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. {??} > > > >< Your response is all SOUND (and FURY?). Where is the LIGHT? Most of us conversant with the Doppler effect in sound transmission 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 traveling towards or away from me will arrive at my ear in the same time as does a toot from a stationary train. {If train 1 is a mile away and train 2 next to you, how can that be right?} 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! > > >< 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) is a solid, liquid or gas. The important issue is that he defines aether as a medium for the propagation of photon waves or particles. {??| A wave needs a medium, but a particle doesn't. That was WHY Einstein said that a photon is a particle. He needed light to be an ensemble of particles in order to let them transmit through the "empty space" of his 2nd postulate. >< 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 the same 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. > The trouble with you, Zinnac, is that you are a biochemist. Therefore you think in terms of real things rather than in terms of the non-existing things imagined by physicists, such as points and lines and dimensions and infinitely-extending co-ordinate systems etc. Also, unlike most physicists, you insist on knowing the meaning of the words people use. glird
From: Arindam Banerjee on 7 Feb 2010 17:40 On Jan 21, 12:49 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? AB: None so blind as those who won't see. I believe I have made my points as clearly as my hero Sir Isaac Newton would have desired me to. I don't hold myself responsible for the obtuseness of my readers. Still, thanks for playing along. So much better than the usual churls. Let me see what I can do. Most of > us conversant with the Doppler effect in sound transmissionan do not > need your lesson in high school physics. AB: Let us see, someone was talking about 13 year olds right? So I took you to be as one, as you wanted me to (see below). I have after all given a very new analysis of it, which you do not acknowledge. Nothing new here, of course. I don't want to sound furious :) Why have you ignored my > question re the relationships between photons and space in your new > physics? AB: What was the question once again? To quote you, upon which I gave my answer: ** begin quote: 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 ** end quote I believe my above reply was focussed upon the Doppler aspects, and it had everything to do with my basic point relating to the fact that the speed of light is *not* invariant. Just as the speed of sound is *not* invariant, it varies with the speed of the emitter. As to a photon, that is nothing but a brief em wave resulting from the transient creation via collison processes of an electric dipole of atomic dimensions, and this point I had said long ago in this thread (or maybe elsewhere). I think I need to give a good insightful and clear lecture about the basic nature of wave motion, of the sort not given before, to explain the whole thing nicely. Hmm, that will take some time, and I have other matters to deal with. If asked to lecture somewhere, in some physics department say, I will take the time to make this point more clear. Thank you for rasing it. > 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. Your understanding is wrong - or at least, I won't accept it unless it is proven *by experiment* to *my* satisfaction. Since the velocity of sound changes with the direction of the emitter, the time it will take to reach you if the object is moving towards you will be lesser than the time it will take to reach you if the object is moving away from you. > This is easily checked and, when when proved correct (as I believe), believe believe believe.. we are talking science are we not? In science there is no belief like there is in religion. There is experiment, and knowledge following from experiment. Yes we can bungle in our experiments (most famously, the MMI experiment) and its analysis, repeat the same mistake all over again for generations and as a result completely screw up that particular discipline. Nevertheless, with research (seeing again with fresher, newer outlook) we can correct mistakes. So if it can be easily checked out, let us do so by all means. From my experience with aircraft flying over our heads during radar trials, I have had my full of such sound theory! Why did we not hear them as they were coming till very late, and why did we hear so much of them when they had passed over our heads? Let us do some maths, and suppose they were flying at half the speed of sound: At distance S away (and coming to us) the time ot reach us will be space/distance or s/(v+.5v) = 0.67s/v At distance S away (and going away from us) the time for sound to reach us will be s/(v - .5v) = 2s/v What is the relevance of these two different values? When the time is small, it means that the sound reaches us so fast, it does not persist in our ears. So we hear a brief high-pitched whine when the plane approaches. However, when it leaves us, we hear a low frequencey drone for a much longer time. Now take the case of a sonic fighter, where v = velocity of sound. The corresponding figures above will be zero and infinity which means effectively that we will never hear it coming, but after it has gone the sound will ring in our ears for ever! Or at least, till the amplitude dies down with the distance... Now are my formulas and explanations intuitive or not? Do they conform to everyone's experience with planes or not? By all means we should conduct an experiment to prove this point once and for all. I think it can be easily done, with sonar and radar working together. We got to talk nicely to defence people! > 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). That is right as far as it goes. Why the Doppler effect then? Wavelength gets only *apparently* shortened when the source moves, as it (the sound wave motion) rushes past faster on the source. It does not get actually shortened. The frequency on the other hand is dependent upon this *apparent* shortening, so we get to hear the actual change of the frequencies. Profoundly philsophical, this point! > 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! I am sure it would be. But at some stage, I need to get more than casual attention in Usenet. I need some decent and honest scientists to have the guts to ask me to speak to them about my new findings in a series of lectures. When that sort of response is not forthcoming, should I be pilloried for being merely reticent? > Regards > Zinnic.- Lots of regards to you. Indeed I have completed my book "The Principles of Motion" and much more than what you ask I have put in that book, which continues in spirit the work of my hero Sir Isaac Newton. Mainly it deals with the consequences of a new mathematical formula I happily discovered, that correctly relates mass and energy. I have explained everything, from the lighting of a match to the energy from the sun, using that one formula. Maybe, one day, when the scientific world regains its honesty and wits and courage, I may publish it. In the meantime, I will work on other more important things - such as metaphysics! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Arindam Banerjee on 7 Feb 2010 18:18 On Jan 21, 11:52 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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 Mate, it is Arindam, not Arandim. If you cannot get this simple point straight, what should I think of you? 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. Yes, such is so by definition. > It matters little whether aether (as a biochemist I prefer this > spelling; Well okay. Call it aum if you like. I would personally prefer to call aether or ether as aum - that which contains all sounds and vibrations. 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. Photons are brief electro-magnetic pulses caused by the formatioin through collison processes of transient electric dipoles of atomic dimensions. Their frequency is proportional to the physical dimensions of the dipoles. 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). Great, just right. Or some receiver which intercepts, and then absorbs, refracts or reflects. Please understand, that everything around us that is hot - all matter that is that moves - is always radiating... It is a most fundamental process! > 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. Well, if you have participated in as many radar trials as I have, where we had to track the planes coming at us, and then going away, you may have believed otherwise. But then, there are very few chaps around who have taken part in radar trials! See my earlier post on this thread. > 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, What I have shown is that there was an enormous bungle in the experimental analysis of the Michelson Morley Interferometry experiment. (Not as important as your bungling about the spelling of my name, how you managed Arandim is beyond me) However that experiment was performed regularly for generations, with thoroughness. However they forgot that the Earth was moving, hence the wrong conclusion about the constancy of the speed of light - the hallowed first postulate of SR. If we agree that the Earth moves around the Sun, then the whole thing only shows that the speed of light is in fact dependent upon the speed of the emitter of light. And the whole structure of "modern physics" crashes like a house of cards. This bungle has to be discussed on its own merits - it is not related to any other criteria. It is not even dependent upon the existence of ether. It is dependent upon the movement of the Earth - that it is not fixed in ether or space, for it is moving all the while in orbit around the Sun. > 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. Yes, the nature of the medium affects the propagation in many ways. Like, light travels slowly in a dense medium like glass, or water. Causing refraction effects, thus. I have also said that the speed of light depends upon the speed of the emitter of light. Again, an insightful lecture into wave motion, travelling wave, etc.from my side will help a lot. Wave motion is so very fundamental! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: whoever on 7 Feb 2010 18:39
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:5d0e074e-db5c-444f-8268-1838fbe5f6d5(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > What I have shown is that there was an enormous bungle in the > experimental analysis of the Michelson Morley Interferometry > experiment. (Not as important as your bungling about the spelling of > my name, how you managed Arandim is beyond me) However that > experiment was performed regularly for generations, with > thoroughness. However they forgot that the Earth was moving, Nonsese .. that's exactly what the experiment was designed to tested. You don't have to 'remember' it .. the test tests for it .. The movement of the earth wasn't 'forgotten', it was experimentally shown not to have the 'expected' impact on the results that aether theories predict > hence > the wrong conclusion about the constancy of the speed of light - the > hallowed first postulate of SR. Hence you have no idea what you're talking about > If we agree that the Earth moves > around the Sun, then the whole thing only shows that the speed of > light is in fact dependent upon the speed of the emitter of light. No .. MMX (and similar subsequent and more accurate experiments) shows it is NOT dependent > And the whole structure of "modern physics" crashes like a house of > cards. No .. your argument does, because you start with an incorrect premise > This bungle has to be discussed on its own merits - it is not related > to any other criteria. It is not even dependent upon the existence of > ether. It is dependent upon the movement of the Earth - that it is > not fixed in ether or space, for it is moving all the while in orbit > around the Sun. Exactly what the experiments *would* have detected .. but did *not* detect because that motion make no difference to the speed of light --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |