Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 13:36 On Mar 7, 7:49 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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. 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. That's right. But it is NOT THE CASE that you can point to any given experiment and it will select relativity from other competing theories. NO single experiment ever does that. The ballistic theory IS compatible with the MMX but it is wholly incompatible with a whole bunch of other experiments that have been conducted since then. To pull one theory out from other competing theories, you cannot just CHOOSE one experiment and see what it says. You have to look at ALL the experiments and see what they collectively say. > 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. What > do you believe he could he gain from this? Arindam is desperate for ego-feeding. He honestly wants to tell himself that he is the smartest guy on the planet, and he will do anything to convince himself that it is true. > Regards > Zinnic
From: spudnik on 8 Mar 2010 15:32 how is an interferometric result to be positioned with respect to a ballistical theory; where are your rocks o'light! > theories. NO single experiment ever does that. The ballistic theory IS > compatible with the MMX but it is wholly incompatible with a whole thus: if an electron *is* a point, as seems to be from Al, PD and 1729, then it must say some thing about stringtheory. thus: the constant is the speed in vacuum, only, but vacuum is strictly relative (to the refractive index), as *almost* dyscovered by Pascal. > >http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html > If you could find such a "jellyfish" for light; an object that is thus: it seems that all of Russell's paradoxes were illinguistic, not properly tensed. no barber cuts his own hair e.g.; he'd go to the next village. thus: if you cannot take the heat re M&M, get out of the frying pan: http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html thus: re "spheres of nanothermite," do either of you know the primary use of thermite, and what it is made of? thus: I respect his right to wait til "P3" is out, but a precis would be appreciated. and, please, don't just *say* that Michelson, Morley et al go "no" results, because they actually got some (small) seasonal anomalies -- that goes for you, two, Uncle Al! > Experimental constraints on Special Relativity --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Romanise on 9 Mar 2010 01:50 On Mar 5, 2:23 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > I would appreciate it if you would give an example of your best > evidence (other than the coincidence of the null results obtained by > Einstein's or your theory of light) in support of your theory and > against Einstein's Special Relativity theory. > Regards > Zinnic I hope you got from the Greatest Genius on Earth the answer you sought.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 9 Mar 2010 03:44 On Mar 9, 5:50 pm, Romanise <josh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 2:23 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > I would appreciate it if you would give an example of your best > > evidence (other than the coincidence of the null results obtained by > > Einstein's or your theory of light) in support of your theory and > > against Einstein's Special Relativity theory. > > Regards > > Zinnic > > I hope you got from the Greatest Genius on Earth of all time, may I beg to insert > the answer you > sought.
From: Romanise on 9 Mar 2010 04:58
On Mar 9, 8:44 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 5:50 pm, Romanise <josh...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 5, 2:23 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > I would appreciate it if you would give an example of your best > > > evidence (other than the coincidence of the null results obtained by > > > Einstein's or your theory of light) in support of your theory and > > > against Einstein's Special Relativity theory. > > > Regards > > > Zinnic > > > I hope you got from the Greatest Genius on Earth > > of all time, may I beg to insert Has Zinnic affirmed that, in a private email to you? |