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 7 Feb 2010 20:08 On Jan 21, 3:46 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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). > Fine, another response. Now let us see what this has to do with what I have written above. > 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: Irrelevant to what I wrote. I take it that Landau and Lifshitz did not address the points I made above, but let us see. > "... 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. Not right. For one thing, it is not just the position, but also the direction of movement. Then, there is nothing instantaneous about this interaction. The time factor is there, and that depends upon the nature of the medium. So the whole thing from the engineering point of view is as a system of springs - there is a "k" factor involved, dealing with stresses and strains.... But then this is going to advanced mechanics that we engineers have to learn, okay, in ordinary mechanics we have to make assumptions as we do not want to go to the formidable area of the solution of second order partial differential equations... > 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. Fair enough. This is getting there. > We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the > maximum velocity of propagation of interaction. Why? All we have to see is how the disturbance repeats in phase over a given distance at what time. Noting the phase (top or trough), fixing the distance, and finding the time from experiment will give us that velocity of propagation. > It determines only > that interval of time after which a change occurring in one body > begins to manifest itself in another. So why drag the term "maximum" into the discussion? The maximum if any is infinite velocity of propagation, in theory. If the propagation is fast, the changes will occur sooner. And this should happen, if the body that is creating the disturbance (the emitter) is moving. So when the emitter moves, it effectively forces the adjacent pushed body to move quicker in response. And this extra quickness is passed on, from body to body, creating more quickness of motion or in other words an increased velocity of propagation. On the other hand, the pulled body on the other hand is not excited as it used to be, so there is slowness of velocity of propagation on the other side. Back to the Doppler effect, for a moment. As I said, the sound from a moving approaching plane will be faster in approach by the speed of the plane, as opposed to the static plane. Which means, that over a time period, there will be more wavelengths going past the receiver, as opposed to the static case. It is not that the wavelengths are getting short, it is the waves are passing by faster. Since this is so, the count of the waves (in terms of peaks or troughs) are getting correspondingly higher. In short, the frequency increases. Just because the wave is moving faster, now. And this is it. The consequences of this new thinking, is profound indeed. Wave motion is so fundamental! > 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. A fictitious maximum velocity of propagation is propounded, with no rhyme or reason. Then it is proclaimed that nothing faster than this maximum velocity of propagation can take place! > 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. Well yes, I have worked with signals for a long time. When you design the feeding system of a phased array radar, you got to see how the signals are phased. There are many ways of doing that! What is standard, though, is that different dielectric media give different signal velocities or in other words the speed of light or em varies with the dielectric - this is a crucial factor is designing microwave stripline circuits. > 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. The principles of relativity depends upon making as the mandatory postulate, the constancy of the speed of light as not depending upon the speed of the emitter. Without this, all this e=mcc stuff could not be derived. Now the above is a classic example of tautology. 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. How convenient! A bullshit theory can thus be passed off, without challenge. But then I had to come and expose the racket in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm Cheers, Arindam Banerjee Investigator Adda Enterprises Cutting-edge Research > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I do hope and pray that some decency, courage, honesty and wits may please come to at least some people in the scientific community. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 7 Feb 2010 20:34 On Feb 8, 10:39 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(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 Please go through: http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm for a full analysis of that bungle. If you want to convince me that I am wrong (instead of merely restating tiresome points) then quote from what I have written and then say what is wrong about them. My article is as detailed as it should be, and no person of honesty can or should ignore it. It is not a co-incidence that after a no-name person like you makes a dismissive attack, the supreme monkey and scoundrel in Usenet, the jBm that is, has to follow up with another stupid attack at character assassination. All this should show as clear as crystal, what a great racket this whole relativity business it. The world owes me a lot, for exposing it. > > 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 But I do. I have shown this most clearly. I am sure that many young and bright minds are agreeing with me. As they should, if they want to live in a much better world not run by liars. > > 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 It is dependent. The whole e=mcc structure is complete bullshit. Hand-waving won't work any more, thanks to the power of Internet which can reach anyone directly. > > And the whole structure of "modern physics" crashes like a house of > > cards. > > No .. your argument does, because you start with an incorrect premise No, it is the first postulate that has no basis whatsoever. It is completely wrong, as it is based upon a bungle. > > 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 Quite, and that is because the Earth *is* moving. Because the Earth is moving, the light has to travel different distances for the same marked out distance. This is the part which some honest people may yet not have absorbed; Light *HAS* to travel greater or lessr distances with respect to the marked out distance, simply because the Earth is moving. Why? Because when light leaves one end of the distance, the other end point has shifted, as the Earth is moving. Now, as you say, very correctly, the did not detect any change in the velocity of light with respect to the direction of emission. This can be only because the speed of light in that direction varied. In the forward direction it was c+v, in the lateral c, and so on. The distances the light had to travel were longer or shorter AS THE EARTH IS MOVING I have elaborated all the points in my monograph, found by the link which was given earler. However, none so blind as those who will not see. None so stupid, as those influenced by the jBm and his no-name backers. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---
From: Arindam Banerjee on 7 Feb 2010 20:54 On Jan 20, 6:15 pm, "tbj.b...(a)yahoo.com" <tbj.b...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 Greatly though I admire Sir Isaac Newton, I do not buy his corupuscular theory of light which photonic theory follows. Yes, if light was a particle-photon, then yes its speed would go up and down with the speed of the emitter. Like if you throw a ball from a 60 kmph bus at 40 kmph in front it goes at 100kmph wrt ground, and in rear 20 kmph wrt ground. Light is a wave all right - and the thing to do is to show in clear and simple terms how the velocity of propagation of any wave is dependent upon the speed of the emitter of the wave. From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be verified by sound experiments. Most certainly, these experiments are worth doing. There is no doubt at all the velocity of propagation is dependent upon the medium - the famous eclipse experiment "proving' (heh-heh) GR was not just a bungle, it was sleight of hand. The denser medium around the eclipsed sun bent the light with the simple natural process of refraction, causing the stellar displacemnts passed off hence as proof of the sun acting as a gravity lens. An optical phenomenon became hallowed as the great proof of GR - and held to this day! Ugh. Arindam Banerjee Investigator Adda Enterprises ..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: whoever on 7 Feb 2010 21:11 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:e7b5784a-4240-44cb-9cb1-31af511fec02(a)s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 21, 3:46 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "... 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. > > Not right. For one thing, it is not just the position, but also the > direction of movement. Explain how you can have a change in direction of movement without a change in position > Then, there is nothing instantaneous about > this interaction. See how this statement answers your question below > The time factor is there, and that depends upon the > nature of the medium. So the whole thing from the engineering point of > view is as a system of springs - there is a "k" factor involved, > dealing with stresses and strains.... But then this is going to > advanced mechanics that we engineers have to learn, okay, in ordinary > mechanics we have to make assumptions as we do not want to go to the > formidable area of the solution of second order partial differential > equations... > >> 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. > > Fair enough. This is getting there. > >> We note that this velocity should, strictly speaking, be called the >> maximum velocity of propagation of interaction. > > Why? Because in that system, this is described the *fastest* that a change can propagate. If the maximum is not finite, then infinite speed instant propgation is possible (which you just agreed is not possible). If it is finite, this is describing that value for the system. Note that some changes can possibly propagate slower that this > All we have to see is how the disturbance repeats in phase over > a given distance at what time. Noting the phase (top or trough), > fixing the distance, and finding the time from experiment will give us > that velocity of propagation. No need even for that .. only for how long a given change is propagated. You don't need there to be a cycle of changes >> It determines only >> that interval of time after which a change occurring in one body >> begins to manifest itself in another. > > So why drag the term "maximum" into the discussion? Because that is what it is about !! > The maximum if > any is infinite velocity of propagation, in theory. No .. it is not. You've just finished above saying that it is NOT infinite > If the > propagation is fast, the changes will occur sooner. Well, derr !! > And this should > happen, if the body that is creating the disturbance (the emitter) is > moving. Up to the maximum rate of propagation for that system > So when the emitter moves, it effectively forces the adjacent > pushed body to move quicker in response. And this extra quickness is > passed on, from body to body, creating more quickness of motion or in > other words an increased velocity of propagation. No .. same speed, no increase. Otherwise your change has propagated faster than the speed of propagation. > On the other hand, > the pulled body on the other hand is not excited as it used to be, so > there is slowness of velocity of propagation on the other side. Nonsense. > Back to the Doppler effect, for a moment. As I said, the sound from a > moving approaching plane will be faster in approach by the speed of > the plane, as opposed to the static plane. Wrong > Which means, that over a > time period, there will be more wavelengths going past the receiver, > as opposed to the static case. Wavelengths don't 'go past' anything. They are just lengths. > It is not that the wavelengths are > getting short, Wrong > it is the waves are passing by faster. Nope > Since this is > so, the count of the waves (in terms of peaks or troughs) are getting > correspondingly higher. In short, the frequency increases. Just > because the wave is moving faster, now. Wrong > And this is it. The consequences of this new thinking, is profound > indeed. It shows a profound LACK of thinking on your part. > Wave motion is so fundamental! To waves .. yes. >> 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. > > A fictitious maximum velocity of propagation is propounded, with no > rhyme or reason. The reason is clear .. shame you can't see it > Then it is proclaimed that nothing faster than this > maximum velocity of propagation can take place! Of course not .. otherwise it wouldn't be a maximum, now would it. And if there is no maximum, change can propagate at any speed you like. We know that is not the case (eg the speed of sound in a given medium is fixed) >> 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. > > Well yes, I have worked with signals for a long time. Then it is astounding that you get it so wrong. > When you > design the feeding system of a phased array radar, you got to see how > the signals are phased. There are many ways of doing that! What is > standard, though, is that different dielectric media give different > signal velocities or in other words the speed of light or em varies > with the dielectric - this is a crucial factor is designing microwave > stripline circuits. Of course it does >> 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. > > The principles of relativity depends upon making as the mandatory > postulate, the constancy of the speed of light as not depending upon > the speed of the emitter. No .. it says NOTHING about the constancy speed of light, nor does it depend on it > Without this, all this e=mcc stuff could > not be derived. Now the above is a classic example of tautology. No .. just ignorance on your part > 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. > > How convenient! A bullshit theory can thus be passed off, without > challenge. But then I had to come and expose the racket in > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > Investigator > Adda Enterprises > Cutting-edge Research I think you mean "professional idiot" --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 7 Feb 2010 21:25
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:2603a53b-dac2-4c86-b488-13c5bcd06b98(a)s36g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 10:39 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(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 > > Please go through: > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > for a full analysis of that bungle. Of your bungle, you mean. It even starts off with lies,. claiming the sole basis for SR is the MMX. Not a good start at all. You analysis shows you have no understanding of how the MMX was constructed nor what it was made to measure. > If you want to convince me that I > am wrong (instead of merely restating tiresome points) then quote from > what I have written and then say what is wrong about them. You won't believe it .. crackpots like you never do. Your kind are deluded and happily lie and deny reality to maintain there untenable positions We see it all the time in these newsgroups. > My article is as detailed as it should be, and no person of honesty > can or should ignore it. No person of honesty would agree with it. It starts off with lies and then continues into nonsense. > It is not a co-incidence that after a no-name person like you makes a > dismissive attack, the supreme monkey and scoundrel in Usenet, the jBm > that is, has to follow up with another stupid attack at character > assassination. Your own articles do more to assassinate your character that my pointing out that you are wrong. > All this should show as clear as crystal, what a great racket this > whole relativity business it. The world owes me a lot, for exposing > it. BAHAHAHA .. see .. you ARE deluded >> > 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 > > But I do. No > I have shown this most clearly. No .. you have shown most clearly that you do NOT > I am sure that many young > and bright minds are agreeing with me. You're deluded again > As they should, if they want > to live in a much better world not run by liars. Liars like you >> > 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 > > It is dependent. No .. read up on the experimental results > The whole e=mcc structure is complete bullshit. Translation: "I failed at physics and so rather than admit that i couldn't understand it, physics itself must be wrong" > Hand-waving won't work any more, thanks to the power of Internet which > can reach anyone directly. Shame that .. means idiots like you cna spread their lies and misinformation more readily. >> > And the whole structure of "modern physics" crashes like a house of >> > cards. >> >> No .. your argument does, because you start with an incorrect premise > > No, it is the first postulate that has no basis whatsoever. Other than the many many experiments that show it does > It is > completely wrong, as it is based upon a bungle. Only bungling is in your article >> > 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 > > Quite, and that is because the Earth *is* moving. Yes it is .. but the experiments did not detect this because light does not move like a wave in a fixed aether. > Because the Earth > is moving, the light has to travel different distances for the same > marked out distance. Yes it would > This is the part which some honest people may > yet not have absorbed; Light *HAS* to travel greater or lessr > distances with respect to the marked out distance, simply because the > Earth is moving. Yes it would. > Why? Because when light leaves one end of the > distance, the other end point has shifted, as the Earth is moving. Gees .. you really think you need to explain this? > Now, as you say, very correctly, the did not detect any change in the > velocity of light with respect to the direction of emission. This can > be only because the speed of light in that direction varied. Nope. Not the *only* answer. > In the > forward direction it was c+v, in the lateral c, and so on. And so showed that light was not propagated as a wave in a fixed aether. > The > distances the light had to travel were longer or shorter AS THE EARTH > IS MOVING YES .. WE KNOW THAT. > I have elaborated all the points in my monograph, found by the link > which was given earler. > > However, none so blind as those who will not see. None so stupid, as > those influenced by the jBm and his no-name backers. None so stupid as you. Gees. How many years have you been doing this, I wonder? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |