Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 09:12 "Zinnic" <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote in message news:1069efda-76c4-49a5-8246-054d028be9b5(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> You're still a coward who refused to discuss the lies he publishes in his >> article. I'd say that is the behaviour of a dishonest man who has >> something >> to hide. > > I believe that Arindam is mistaken in his criticism of the river > analogy for the MMX and in his apparent claim that there is no valid > evidence to support Special Relativity. Yes .. both are wrong > However, I am sure that all > experts concede his claim that the ballistic theory re the speed of > light (even if incorrect) is consistent with the null result obtained > in that experiment. of course it is > I contested this and he respectfully corrected > me about the inertial frames of reference that I was using. > The same experts seem only to be contesting the validity of the > ballistic theory favored by Arindam who seems to be hung up on the > river/swimmer analogy for the MMX. I may be wrong but I find it > difficult to accept that Arindam is being deliberately dishonest. He is in that he says he will discuss his paper .. makes those who wnat to jump thru hoops before he will consider it and then refuses to. That is dishonest. > What > do you believe he could he gain from this? Mostly crackpots like him are failed physics students. Rather than admit they failed, they rationalize their failure by instead claiming that physics is wrong and they were really right and the conspiracy of scientists and teachers tried to suppress his wisdom. Its a common delusion. So what he has to gain is it support for his delusions. Its sad, isn't it.
From: Zinnic on 7 Mar 2010 13:24 On Mar 5, 6:09 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 1:23 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 5, 3:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:> On Mar 4, 10:45 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively ruled out > > > > > > > > > > > by the fact of satellites, etc. Similarly, SR has to be thrown out, > > > > > > > > > > > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most maths. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if we have no use for logic, facts, experiments; if we believe > > > > > > > > > > > someone's imagination and hand-waving and plain bullshit are what > > > > > > > > > > > really matter, in *science* as in business or government, for > > > > > > > > > > > perception is all that matters, reality be damned, then I have nothing > > > > > > > > > > > more to say to you guys. There can be no argument! I see myself as > > > > > > > > > > > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > > > > > > > > > > > break the speed of light barrier. The bullshit of SR gets in the way > > > > > > > > > > > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. > > > > > > > > > > > The reason for the speed of light is that you exist on a projected > > > > > > > > > > matrix. All realities are virtual. The speed of light is the frame rate > > > > > > > > > > the software which runs the projection has. Planck's constant is related > > > > > > > > > > to the pixel size of what passes for reality. "Black" is absolute zero. > > > > > > > > > > > 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic canon > > > > > > > > > > before the Brits took over, said there are a myriad such worlds. Yours > > > > > > > > > > may have a way to do what you want, but that wont be evident in mine. > > > > > > > > > > What he probably meant was that every living being lives in its own > > > > > > > > > universe, which starts to exist when he is born, and dies when he > > > > > > > > > dies. A learning experience is an intersection of many such > > > > > > > > > universes. This is a highly metaphysical concept, and standard to > > > > > > > > > many Hindus. I have also mentioned this in my recently completed > > > > > > > > > work, The Birth of Ganesha. > > > > > > > > > Arindam, at the risk of being tedious, let me ask how your theory > > > > > > > > regarding the ballistic nature of light relates to the speeds of > > > > > > > > light incident to, and reflected from a mirror. > > > > > > > > Ballistic nature of light - I like this! > > > > > > > > > I calculate that the time for light propagated to and from mirrors > > > > > > > > equidistant to the fore and rear of a light source in the direction > > > > > > > > of Earth's movement thru space (say v) is NOT equal UNLESS the speed > > > > > > > > (in space) of the reflected light is equal and opposite to that of > > > > > > > > the incident light. > > > > > > > > According to you, the speed of light from a source moving at v will > > > > > > > > be C+v. Thus, a mirror moving at v (in the same direction) will > > > > > > > > either reflect thist light at C+v in the opposite direction or will it > > > > > > > > reflect the light at C+v minus speed v of the mirror to give a net > > > > > > > > speed of C in the opposite direction. > > > > > > > > > Experiment has demonstrated no difference in the total times for > > > > > > > > light to travel an equal distance when propagated/reflected in the > > > > > > > > same/ opposite direction of the motion of Earth in space.. Hence, the > > > > > > > > speeds of incident/ reflected light are indeed equal and opposite and > > > > > > > > not affected by the motion of the mirrors.. > > > > > > > > In 'light' of this, I would appreciate your explanation as to why you > > > > > > > > believe that the motion of an emitter affects the speed light whereas > > > > > > > > motion of a reflecting mirror demonstrably does not. > > > > > > > > This is what the MMI experiment and my analysis is really all about. > > > > > > > Please read carefully what I wrote in > > > > > > > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > > > > > > > and I am sure you will understand. > > > > > > > > Basically, I am saying that the distance moved by light in the > > > > > > > direction of earth's motion is D+d, where D is the distance between > > > > > > > mirrors and d is the extra distance that has to be moved by light, as > > > > > > > the Earth is moving. In the opposite direction, it is D-d. Since t > > > > > > > is the same both ways, it means that the speed of light is c+v one > > > > > > > way, and c-v the other. All this and more I have shown with proper > > > > > > > quotes, diagrams, etc. in the above website. > > > > > > > > If you neglect the extra length d, then of course you will be stuck > > > > > > > with the ancient mistake. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Zinnic > > > > > > > I agree that the incident light travels D+d to the foreward mirror > > > > > > and the reflected light travels back D-d. The total distance frome > > > > > > source to mirror and back being D+d plus D-d equalling 2D. Similarly > > > > > > the total distance travelled by light incident to and reflected from > > > > > > the rear mrror will be D-d plus D+d, again equalling 2D. > > > > > > Wow. Great! Fantastic! This at least outs the bizarre Lorentz > > > > > transformation (that 1/(1 - v^2/c^2) stuff, remember?), which with the > > > > > v=c limit led to the strange notions of length MUST BE zero at speed > > > > > c, mass must be infinite at speed c, nothing can move faster than c, e > > > > > = mcc etc. If universally accepted, that is - as it should be. For > > > > > this, don't I deserve the Nobel Prize? > > > > > > > In your theory the speed in space of the forward incident light is C+v > > > > > > (where v is speed of light emitter) and of the backward incident > > > > > > light is C-v . > > > > > > True. > > > > > > > Thus, the light will reach each mirror in the same time > > > > > > (D+d/C+v and D-d/C-v). > > > > > > True. And this is why there are no nulls in the MMI experiment.. > > > > > > > However, if the light is reflected from the > > > > > > two mirrors at the same but opposite speed (C+v and C-v) > > > > > > c+v and c-v are the same? Gosh! The light is in opposite or > > > > > different directions, agreed. > > > > > > > AND the > > > > > > speed of the mirrors (v) is ballistically factored in (as was the > > > > > > speed of the source for incident light), then the reflected light > > > > > > will travel back to the source at C+v-v or C-v+v. > > > > > > Double- counting! The speed of the mirrors are already taken into > > > > > account when we get c+v/c-v. > > > > > Your theory derives C+v/C-v from the motion of the emitter > > > > (arguable), not of the mirrors. D+d/D-d is derived from the motion of > > > > the the mirrors (agreed), not of the emitter. After reflection, D+d/ > > > > D-d is derived from the speed of the source (agreed), but the speed of > > > > the reflected light consistent with your theory is where we are having > > > > a problem (see below). > > > > > >If the mirror is not moving (it is at > > > > > right angles, as in the MMI expt, then we have only c). > > > > > > Light reaches the mirror at velocity c+v, and then gets reflected back > > > > > at velocity c-v with respect to the fixed ether. Reflected light, is > > > > > same as emitted light. Just as emitted light velocity depends upon > > > > > the speed of the emitter, the reflected light's speed depends upon the > > > > > speed of the reflector. > > > > > Please bear with me. I have problems with your claim that I am double > > > > counting and that light incident at C+v (with respect to the fixed > > > > ether) is reflected back at C-v (with respect to the fixed ether). We > > > > need to clear up why you think this is so before we continue. > > > > Okay, looks like we are clear so far. Now let us continue. > > > > > 1) You claim that a source moving forward at at v results in forward > > > > and backward light moving at C+v and C-v , respectively. > > > > Yes. > > > > > 2) We agree that the mirrors moving at v entails that the distance > > > > travelled to the foreward and backward mirrors will be D+d and D-d > > > > respectively. > > > > Yes. > > > > > 3) We agree that the different velocities and distances involved will > > > > result in the light taking the same time to reach the front and rear > > > > mirrors. > > > > Yes. > > > > > 4) We agree that a stationary mirror will reflect incident light at > > > > the same speed in the opposite direction. > > > > No. There cannot be a stationary mirror in ether. There can be no > > > such thing, for the mirror is on the earth, and the earth is moving > > > with velocity v. > > > > Okay for now. Indicate that you agree and we shall continue. > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > You are indeed correct regarding the light reflection. With a static > > light transmitting medium (if one exists) as the frame of > > refererence, the incident light of speed C+v and C-v would be > > reflected from the front and rear mirrors at C-v and C+v, > > respectively. My contention that both would be reflected at a speed of > > C is incorrect and applies, as you pointed out, only when for the > > emitter and mirrors (Earth) is the frame of reference. > > The overall time for light to return from the front and rear mirrors > > then will be identical even though the emitter and mirrors are moving > > with Earth thru space.The same null result that occurs > > ... > My excuse for top posting is that the space for this exchange is so long. What has happened so far in our discussion is that you have corrected me (a non-physicist) re light reflected by a moving mirror. As you indicated, my error lay in using the wrong inertial frame of reference. My confusion remains about your frame of reference when you reject the analogy of (floats/river/swimmers) with (mirrors/ Earth motion/light progression) used to interpret the null result for the MMX. I understand that this experiment was conducted in order to demonstrate the existence of a static luminiferous aether for light transmission. Those who accepted Einstein's postulate of the constancy of light speed in space at C (and presumably rejected the ballistic theory) incorporate time and/or distance contraction in order to accommodate the observed null result. Everything else being equal, your claim of the vectorial speed of light is consistent with, and is an intuitive explanation for, the null result. That being said, however, it remains for you to provide evidence to support the vectorial, ballistic theory and to invalidate well-documented evidence that apparently supports Einstein's Special Relativity. Your link indicates that you have some moral objection to the complete relativity engendered by absence of an absolute reference in Einstein's theory. However, I do not believe that moral objections are relevant to the science involved in this discussion. For me, Science is neutral and does not speak to human morality. First, my understanding of the analogy (river/floats attached to riverbed /swimmers) is that the river represents the moving Earth, the river bed represents space or, if it exists, the stationary luminiferous aether and the swimmers represent the progression of light in space or aether. The stationary floats in the analogy are markers for the inertial frame of reference of stationary space or aether, so I do not understand why you believe that they have been assigned a negative velocity in order to make them stationary. In the analogy, they are already stationary by definition. If you insist that the floats (space) must be allowed to flow with the river (Earth) then you change the analogy to one in which space (floats) moves with the Earth (river). Space is eliminated as a frame of reference, leaving Earth as the only reference. I believe a better analogy is provided by comparing the times taken for two individuals walking on the ground at a speed of C as they pace out the perpendicular sides of a square platform when a) it is stationary and b) it is moving forward on the ground at a speed of v. In the river and platform analogies, the speeds of C+v and C-v re- introduce the space referent and apply for an Earth (river, or platform ) in motion (at v) relative to points in space (stationary river bed floats, or the ground). The real difference in this thread is not that contributors deny your correct claim that the ballistic theory of light is consistent with the null result of the MM, but that you reject Special Relativity on that basis. My second confusion arises from your failure to recognize that the apparent differences in frequency of a wave form observed by stationary or moving observers is not the same as the real differences emitted from stationary or moving emitters. For example, I contend that motion of an observer changes the distance and time for the wave to travel from the emitter to the observer but with no change in the intrinsic speed of the wave form. To claim otherwise is to insist that the state of the observer acts at a distance to change the state (speed/ frequency) of the wave front emitted. If you believe this, furthur discussion would be way over my head. :-) Also, based on speed = frequency x wavelength, you imply that the speed of a wave form is directly proportional to its frequency That is, change in frequency is independent of change in wave length. This is evident from your insistence that motion of an observer through a waveform changes its frequency and speed but not its wavelength. It seems to me that the speed of the waveform remains constant whilst the apparent wave length changes as an inverse of the change in apparent frequency. I will be pleased if you have the interest and time to continue our discussion but, whatever your decision, let me thank you for what has been a courteous, interesting and, for me, an educational exchange. Regards Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 7 Mar 2010 13:30 On Mar 7, 8:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Zinnic" <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote in message > > news:1069efda-76c4-49a5-8246-054d028be9b5(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 7, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> You're still a coward who refused to discuss the lies he publishes in his > >> article. I'd say that is the behaviour of a dishonest man who has > >> something > >> to hide. > > > I believe that Arindam is mistaken in his criticism of the river > > analogy for the MMX and in his apparent claim that there is no valid > > evidence to support Special Relativity. > > Yes .. both are wrong > > > However, I am sure that all > > experts concede his claim that the ballistic theory re the speed of > > light (even if incorrect) is consistent with the null result obtained > > in that experiment. > > of course it is > > > I contested this and he respectfully corrected > > me about the inertial frames of reference that I was using. > > The same experts seem only to be contesting the validity of the > > ballistic theory favored by Arindam who seems to be hung up on the > > river/swimmer analogy for the MMX. I may be wrong but I find it > > difficult to accept that Arindam is being deliberately dishonest. > > He is in that he says he will discuss his paper .. makes those who wnat to > jump thru hoops before he will consider it and then refuses to. That is > dishonest. > > > What > > do you believe he could he gain from this? > > Mostly crackpots like him are failed physics students. Rather than admit > they failed, they rationalize their failure by instead claiming that physics > is wrong and they were really right and the conspiracy of scientists and > teachers tried to suppress his wisdom. Its a common delusion. So what he > has to gain is it support for his delusions. Its sad, isn't it. Thanks for your response. If what you say is correct then indeed it is sad. I guess in your opinion he will refuse to see the light, no matter what. :-)
From: spudnik on 7 Mar 2010 15:38 the dude never stated (AFAIK) that he was a studied physicist, but that he in deed was a Cable Guy, or some thing. don't top-post because miss nettikett said, So!... anyway, it has been repeatedly shown that M&M got null results -- not -- and Cahill's graph of these & following historical results is useful, no matter what you think of his theories or math, because they are al "zero at zero" -- not. there is no need of an aether, if there is only realtive vacuum- ing! > > > The overall time for light to return from the front and rear mirrors > > > then will be identical even though the emitter and mirrors are moving > > > with Earth thru space.The same null result that occurs > > > ... > > My excuse for top posting is that the space for this exchange is so > long. > > What ... > > read more » thus: who says, the redshift canonically is a doppler effect?... oh, yeah; the Einsteinmaniacs! like, I really have to read *less* of this ****. > read more »... http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynami... --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 17:08
"Zinnic" <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote in message news:10b926c6-0d5c-4431-803a-aeda7975c43b(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 8:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Zinnic" <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1069efda-76c4-49a5-8246-054d028be9b5(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 7, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> You're still a coward who refused to discuss the lies he publishes in >> >> his >> >> article. I'd say that is the behaviour of a dishonest man who has >> >> something >> >> to hide. >> >> > I believe that Arindam is mistaken in his criticism of the river >> > analogy for the MMX and in his apparent claim that there is no valid >> > evidence to support Special Relativity. >> >> Yes .. both are wrong >> >> > However, I am sure that all >> > experts concede his claim that the ballistic theory re the speed of >> > light (even if incorrect) is consistent with the null result obtained >> > in that experiment. >> >> of course it is >> >> > I contested this and he respectfully corrected >> > me about the inertial frames of reference that I was using. >> > The same experts seem only to be contesting the validity of the >> > ballistic theory favored by Arindam who seems to be hung up on the >> > river/swimmer analogy for the MMX. I may be wrong but I find it >> > difficult to accept that Arindam is being deliberately dishonest. >> >> He is in that he says he will discuss his paper .. makes those who wnat >> to >> jump thru hoops before he will consider it and then refuses to. That is >> dishonest. >> >> > What >> > do you believe he could he gain from this? >> >> Mostly crackpots like him are failed physics students. Rather than admit >> they failed, they rationalize their failure by instead claiming that >> physics >> is wrong and they were really right and the conspiracy of scientists and >> teachers tried to suppress his wisdom. Its a common delusion. So what >> he >> has to gain is it support for his delusions. Its sad, isn't it. > > Thanks for your response. If what you say is correct then indeed it is > sad. I guess in your opinion he will refuse to see the light, no > matter what. :-) If he is indeed a typical crackpot / crank .. then yes. There are other varieties. He certainly does show the hallmarks of crack-pottery. I'm sure I am not the first person who understand the physics of SR and ballistic theories who was pointed out the very real flaws in his article the supposedly refutes SR based on his faulty analogy of MMX, and that have told him of the at least a century of experimental evidence that supports SR, and that have told him of the experiments that completely refute ballistic/emission theory of light. |