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 3 Jan 2010 17:18 Dear All, I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my ideas on the HTN have found favour with many. http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they will not be based upon rocketry. Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. I will be most happy to answer honest queries. http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the correct formula linking mass with energy. Cheers to all, and with best wishes, Arindam Banerjee Hampton Park, Australia
From: dlzc on 3 Jan 2010 21:49 On Jan 3, 3:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: Please stop using any technology based on modern physics, since you think it is wrong. David A. Smith
From: Androcles on 3 Jan 2010 22:08 "dlzc" <dlzc1(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:55888d96-0493-49fe-a9fc-3e6da6298b06(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Jan 3, 3:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: Please stop using any technology based on modern physics, since you think it is wrong. David A. Smith =============================================== You are a fuckin' liar, Smiffy, YOU wrote that. "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in > public > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down > by > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > ideas on the HTN have found favour with > many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as > they > will not be based upon rocketry. > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this > article. > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, > as > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon > the > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > Arindam Banerjee > Hampton Park, Australia
From: Just Me on 4 Jan 2010 02:33 On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they > will not be based upon rocketry. > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > Arindam Banerjee > Hampton Park, Australia In your monograph, you make the following statement . . . "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of v, so that its net velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0." It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis for your entire theory. You state that "the river is the Earth moving with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference." It is quite clear, however that the river is not the "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift". As the river analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself, or i.e. the flow of the river. The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference. This fact completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays. The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference" is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks, and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether, as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the analogy. The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water, and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial location outside the flow is irrelevant. It is an instant in time relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light. The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite "clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity. The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of reference or it will not. There was no such new absolute frame of reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute. -- JM
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 4 Jan 2010 04:45
On Jan 3, 11:33 pm, Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public > > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by > > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it > > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my > > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm > > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started > > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they > > will not be based upon rocketry. > > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please > > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article. > > I will be most happy to answer honest queries. > > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as > > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open > > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the > > correct formula linking mass with energy. > > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > Hampton Park, Australia > > In your monograph, you make the following statement . . . > > "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v > and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. > Didn't even Newton say that there is no absolute frame of reference and that all inertial frames of reference are equally "absolute"? > > Any > object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the > river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to > drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of v, so that its net > velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0." > > It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis > for your entire theory. You state that "the river is the Earth moving > with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of > reference." It is quite clear, however that the river is not the > "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift". As the river > analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of > the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical > assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given > the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself, > or i.e. the flow of the river. > > The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and > parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no > such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed > there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference. This fact > completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the > consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays. > The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference" > is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the > analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks, > and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether, > as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the > analogy. > > The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with > respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with > respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water, > and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial > location outside the flow is irrelevant. It is an instant in time > relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on > the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the > ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a > clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that > position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by > the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light. > > The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or > perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy > expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of > energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy > expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no > ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the > same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite > "clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or > constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the > quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not > reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity. > > The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at > the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of > reference or it will not. There was no such new absolute frame of > reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was > only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute. > -- > JM |