Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 06:28 On Feb 21, 3:54 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > "Zinnic" <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote in message > > news:d2eee322-464d-42a9-91b3-516cd7e13304(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:> On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 9, 12:13 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > Snip for brevity (Zinnic) > > > > Arindam I apologise for my previous typo re your name. > > > Accepted. > > > > Let us again discuss your misconception regarding the speed of sound > > > in a media. > > > Let us see who is misconceiving. > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > I have no intention of bullying anyone . My sole interest is to > understand what evidence you use to debunk the theory that the > speed of light is independent of the speed of its source and is a > constant for all frames of reference. > > AB: So exactly where, may I ask, have you produced the slightest shred of > evidence/logic/rebuttal to my debunking of the results of the MMI > experiment? Can we go through my debunking of it point by point? I have > worked for a long time on this over the years, and so will not and cannot > accept a simple refusal or negation from the Abominable Garg. The speed of > light is NOT constant - it varies with the medium, and the speed of the > emitter. The former is well known (only a complete fool will try to dispute > it) and the latter is proved by the MMI experiment, from my correct analysis > of it. > > Your reliance on an invalid > analogy with the speed of sound raises serious questions in my mind > regarding your reasoning. I need to be reassured here. > > AB: Pardon me, it was YOU who put up the sound analogy maintaining that the > speed of sound was invariant with respect to the speed of the emitter. I > have been saying that the invariance of the speed of light has been > disproven by the MMI experiment. If you now make false charges, what does > that show? You neglect my points totally, then put up your own (the speed > of sound's invariance) then maintain that I rely on an invalid analogy! Is > this scientific???? :) I don't know whether to laugh or cry! > > Whether or not you accept it, it is a fact that experimental > observations have established that the speed in air of the wavefront > of sound impulses is independent of the speed in air of the sound > source. This is demonstrated, indepently of many experimental > observations, by simple observation that a supersonic plane passes > the observer before it is heard. Given your experience, you know well > that the sonic boom lags the plane's arrival. > > AB: The last is exactly what I have been saying, and demonstrating with > maths. Which all proves that the speed of sound in air is v+V, where v is > speed of sound between static objects and V is the relative velocity when > they are not static. In any case, this has nothing whatever to do with my > debunking of the normally accepted results of the MMI experiment. I note > that you are not quoting even an attempt to match radar and sonar, to find > out whether or not the velocity of sound changes with the speed of the > source. We can wait for the results of a honestly done experiment upon this > subject (of speed of sound's invariance) with bated breath, but really that > has nothing whatever to do with the speed of light's invariance or not. The > MMI experiment proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the speed of light has > to depend upon the speed of the light emitter. AS the Earth is moving, > light in space has to travel greater or smaller distances. As they do so in > the same time, PROVES that the speed of light is NOT invariant with the > speed of the emitter. To travel the same measured distance that is now > longer to travel, light travels faster; to travel the same measured distance > that is now shorter to travel, light travels slower. As I have shown, this > fundamental point was well known to the early physicists. What they forgot > to take into account was the simple but subtle and certainly most profound > and original point just made in this paragraph - about light *actually* > travelling varying distances with respect to orientation. They forgot to > take this point, and this mistake was repeated down the ages. Till I > exposed it! > > What you now need to demonstrate is that the propagation of light > differs in this respect from the propagation of sound and is > analogous, as you claim, to the propagation of a projectile (matter) > launched from a moving platform. > > AB: I have already demonstrated the true reason of the Doppler effect; and I > have also shown the great bungle underlying the interpretation of the > experimental results of the MMI experiment. Further, I have found the > correct relationship between mass and energy, outing Einstein's wrong and > stupid e=mcc for ever. I do not need to demonstrate anything more, for now. > My ground-breaking, original work, which has stunning engineering > consequences, has been accepted by Indian engineers and physicists - it took > a few PhDs in Physics to agree that I was correct, or else Outlook magazine > would not have carrried out their famous 2003 article, which in turn > resulted from publicity in the Indian news media. Yes I need to do a lot of > experimental work, and when I have the funding or backing will do so. Why I > am not helped in this by the establishment, is telling. > > > > You are in fact incorrect in claiming that the speed of sound is > > > increased when its source is moving toward the receiver and is > > > decreased when the source is moving away. > > > In any case, this is not germane to the issue of SR. You are just > > making a statement. I dispute it. The only way out is to perform an > > experiment and let third parties decide. I can only agree when things > > are proven to me with experiment. True I have not performed an > > experiment using radar and sonar, but my experience with subsonic > > fighters going over my head is good enough. And it all can be shown > > with maths, as I have indicated in earlier posts. > > No, it may be is good enough for you but not for a scientific > approach!. Your math (C + v) shows only that you believe that light > is propagated in the same way as a projectile (matter). You are just > making that statement . It has yet to be demonstrated by you! > > AB: I am not responsible for your ignorance in wave motion. You are > consistently refusing to accept all the points I have been making, that > demonstrate the validity of my statements. I am not just making any > statement, that is YOUR strategy. I have been making points that 10+ year > old kids who are clever enough, can understand. Yes, it may help if I give > a lecture on wave motion, but if you simply ignore it all and merely say > that I am wrong, what is the point? Of course, that lecture will help 10+ > year old kids, and for their sake, I will do it one day. You are wrongly > trying to put an inductive logic to my effort, by making an analogy to the > sound speed, but *my logic* in debunking the concept of the speed of light's > invariance is DEDUCTIVE meaning it is PERFECT:LY SOUND and IRREFUTABLE > limited only by the validity of assumption. The only assumption involved > there, is that the Earth is moving. Since you do not dispute that, there is > no way you or anyone else can hold with any degree of honesty that the speed > of light is invariant. Since the speed of light is NOT invariant, the whole > structure of SR and with it all of that not even voodoo known as modern > physics crashes to the ground. > > > > Let us say that the speed of sound emitted from a stationary emitter > > > is S. According to you, when the sound source is moving towards the > > > receiver at a speed of v then the speed of the sound will increase > > > from S to an additive speed of S + v. > > > Yes. > > > > Now consider a sound source moving towards the receiver at a speed of > > > S. Again according to you, the sound will move at S + S = 2S. How > > > then does a supersonic airplane or rocket break the sound barrier? > > > The same way as a viman going at super light speed will break the so- > > called light barrier. > > What is really happening is that since the sound is travelling so > > fast, it does not stay with the receiver on the ground for a long > > time. Only a very short time, as the source is coming to him on the > > ground. But as it leaves or goes the other way, it stays with the > > receiver for a very long time. > > Surely you agree that is not a scientific statement. > > AB: If you are talking about the viman, it is a NOTIONAL statement, not > irrelevant to the discussion here about breaking so-called barriers. > > What do you mean > by the sound "does not stay with the receiver" for short or long > times? Explain why you believe that sound "stays" anywhere or with > anything. Do you not accept that sound is transient? > > AB: To quote what you wrote above: > ((This is demonstrated, indepently of many experimental > observations, by simple observation that a supersonic plane passes > the observer before it is heard. Given your experience, you know well > that the sonic boom lags the plane's arrival.)) I was talking about the > same thing - that you can hear the plane coming at you (if it is subsonic) > for a short time, but you can hear it depart for a much longer time. If it > is supersonic you cannot hear it coming at all, but you can hear it go away > for a very long time. Sorry for this, but the last line is wrong. I was somewhat distracted then. What I meant to write was that if a plane came at you at near sonic speeds, you could hear it coming at you for only a short time, but hear it depart from you for a much longer time. As I have written below, if a plane is supersonic, you will hear it when it is coming at you for a short time, and over you, but then you won't hear it at all. I regret this mistake. Soldiers struck with bullets say much the same > thing - you never hear the bullet that hits you! I have already shown the > maths for all this, going by the variance of sound's speed. > > > > No matter how fast the plane is going it can never catch up to the the > > > sound it emits because that sound will always exceed the speed of the > > > plane (v) by S (the speed of sound from a stationary source). > > > Yes, of course. Like if I throw out a beam of light from a viman > > going at 2c, in the forward direction it will go at 3c and in the > > backward at c. Of course the plane won't catch up with the sound it > > emits. Why should it? > > Throw out beams of light? This reveals your hang up with projectile > physics. > > AB: If you want to quibble with semantics, and show contempt for that most > useful physics relating to kinetics, that is your choice. Of course you can > throw out a beam of light from any moving source. Can't you flash your > torch when your car is moving? Similarly, if you are going at 2c, you can > flash your torch out of the window into outer space. This latter, again, is > NOTIONAL. > > According to you, the speed of sound emitted by the plane must be > greater than the speed of the plane. That is, the actual speed of > sound (S + V) is its intrinsic speed in air from a stationarry emittor > (S) plus the speed of the plane that emits the sound (V). > > AB: It is the actual speed of sound between the transmitter and the > receiver, yes. More formally, if the speed of sound is S, and the speed of > the receiver is V(theta), then the actual speed is > Vactual(theta) = S + V(theta). > Got it? See how inconvenient this is for simple minds! The speed of sound > is just not invariant, it varies with angle too. In one dimension, it is > just plus or minus. But in the 2-d plane there is an angle involved. Just > to make if a bit more complicated, in the real-world 3-D we have > Vactual(theta, phi) = S +V(theta, phi) > > If this is > so, you need to explain what it is that you understand by a moving > object breaking the sound barrier! That can never happen if, as you > claim, the speed of the sound emitted (S + V) is always faster than > the speed of the emitter (V) > > AB: When a moving object goes past the speed of sound, nothing in particular > happens to anything in the object. The air is still there, so it is > business as usual. Let us consider one dimension. The plane is a distance > S away from a still object, and moving at 2v. The speed of sound is thus > v+2v= 3v. Thus when the plane is S distance away, the sound from it will > arrive in time t = s/3v; when it is S/2 away it will arrive in time t=s/6v > and so on. When S=0, the time is 0 of course. Now it is going past, and > the speed of sound now is v-2v = -v. Meaning you never hear the sound, as > it goes away from you since the emitter is supersonic. If it is supersonic! > But if it was v or near v instead of 2v, then the speed of the sound would > be a positive quantity meaning you could hear it. Like if it was 0.5 v, it > would be v-0.5v = 0.5v. Thus from distance S, the sound would come in time > s/0.5v or 2s/v. Which is more time than s/3v, as you see. This matches > with the experience of subsonic planes that I have heard flying over me. > > >The speed of sound is independent of the speed of its source, > > As I said, this is just a statement. No proof. I hold that it is an > > incorrect statement, based upon my personal experiene of planes flying > > over my head. > > Apparently, you have never experienced a supersonic plane flying over > your head! It passes before you hear it. Simple as that! > > AB: Quite, you hear it very briefly and then never hear it again. As my > maths involving the variance of sound speed shows. I was speaking from my > experience with subsonic planes. A supersonic plane is quite another > thing - the sound waves don't ever reach you after the plane has gone over > you. So you see, if you flash a lightbulb out the rear of a viman flying > at -2c (away from you), the speed of that light will be -c with respect to > you and so you will never see it. > > > such > > > > that a single shot fired from a gun mounted on a moving train will be > > > heard at the same time by receivers located at the perimeter > > > circumscibed by a radius centered by the point at which the gun was > > > fired. > > > Prove it. This is just a statement, and I feel sure it is completely > > wrong. > > Feeling sure does'nt compute scientifically. > > AB: So do the experiment. > > > It can be done using military radar and sonar. > > We will find that the speed of sound is different in different > > directions for a moving object. > > It has already been established that this is not so. > > AB: You have done nothing of the sort. > > Would you take a > small bet (winnings to go to a charity of our choice) against my claim > that , everything else being equal (wind, temperature gradient, > altitude , air density/pressure variations etc) it is a fact there is > no significant difference in the speed of sound in different > directions from a moving sound source? > > AB: Certainly. Provided I agree with the way the experiment is done, and am > also deeply involved with it. I will not take anything on trust, of course. > So many billions are being spent on research, why not some money on this > experiment? I can come up with $1000 of my own money for this. Any research > institute with funds, any interested govt. departments, please speak up! > > > This comes from the very nature of waves. Yes I need to elaborate on > > this and maybe I will when I get more respect for my new and brilliant > > theories. > > Please do elaborate; then we will see about the respect :-) > > AB: I will do so after the experiment you mentioned is performed to my > satisfaction, and the satisfaction of unbiased parties. I also must note > that all this WILL HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE WRONGNESS OF THE > MMI EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS, which led to the wrong notion of light speed > invariance, upon which the whole of SR is based. May I also note that these > are mere diversionary tactics that you employ, to deflect from the main > topic. > > > > That is the speed of sound from a moving (or stationary) > > > emitter is the same constant (in still air) in every direction! > > > The frequency of the sound will differ (Dopplar effect) but will be > > > compensated by an appropriate change in wavelength according to Speed > > > (constant) = frequency x wavelength. > > > Exactly the sort of rubbish that was concocted to support the bullshit > > SR theories - they had to make the speed of sound constant, like they > > had to make the c constatnt! > > That is not correct. "They" do not believe that propagation of light > is analogous to propagation of sound. "They" believe that matter > (super sonic plane) can exceed the speed of sound (1,100 ft/sec). > They do not believe that matter can exceed the speed of light > (186,000 miles/sec). "They" believe that an observer (ear) moving > in air at a speed of V experiences sound (hears) in a time inversely > related to the actual speed of sound in air (S) plus or minus V. They > do not believe the speed (V) of the observer or emittor changes the > time in which light is experienced (seen). That is their problem, but > why on earth do you suggest that they recruit the physics of sound > to support their light theory? > > AB: Looks obvious to me. There is no other reason to hold the ridiculous > notion that the wavelength actually shrinks. They all gang up to confuse > matters, so as to get more funding. > > > The wavelength does not change, silly, the waves only move faster past > > the receiver as the speed is now higher, and so the frequency count > > goes up at the receiver. This is shown as the Doppler effect, which > > proves the fact that the speed of sound varies with the speed of the > > emitter. > > Incorrect. It proves only that the receiver experiences sound impulses > more frequently. Just like the frequency of observation of highway > light poles increases as a car speed is increased, The speed of the > car does changes neither the distance between the light poles nor > their actual frequency (number per mile) along the highway. . > In contrast, if there was such a thing as a lightpole emittor > (correction, emitter) that emits light poles at a constant number per > unit of time, then the distance between light poles (wavelength), and > hence their frequency (number per mile) along the highway, would > depend on the motion of the light pole emitter. So it is with sound > impulses in air. > > AB: If you agree that the wavelength does not change, but the frequency > does, then you must agree that the speed of sound has to change > correspondingly. > > > > Thus, you cannot use sound transmission as an analogy to support your > > > claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of its > > > source. > > Ps. I believe your additive notion of S + v is correct when v> > represents the rate of movement of the transmitting media towards a > > > motionless reciever. For example, the movement of air (wind), the > > > media transmitting sound. However, this cannot be applied to the > > > aether that transmits light (or do you also contest that?). > > > Please read carefully all that I have written, and you should > > understand. It may take some time for you to unlearn the wrong > > ideas. I think I have made all my points as clearly and simply as > > possible. > > I have read your claims carefully and it is clear that you are > confused by what is involved in the Doppler sound effect. Changes in > the speed of sound is not, as you claim, a factor in the different > effects that result from the motion of the source and or receptor of > the sound wavefront. > Your claims for the propagation of light are based on an invalid > analogy with the propagation of sound, and are therefore suspect. > > AB: I don't think there will be any use in replying to your post, and I have > much better things to do, so feel free to have the last word. > As an engineer, I go by results and I will know whether I or anyone else is > correct, only when experiment correctly done and analysed, proves same. > If you (or anyone like you) really have the means to create a proper > experiment to prove or disprove the invariance of the speed of sound (that > will be an interesting task) then do let me know by private email. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. > > Regards > Zinnic
From: PD on 21 Feb 2010 15:34 On Feb 20, 8:39 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the > only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your > intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental > measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, > then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to > make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there > is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, > and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the > experimental results. > > There is no way around this. > > AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. > I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can.. > Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand..http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old > intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that > light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. If this reason is > ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. > It is my job as an honest person to expose it. If someone has an issue, he > can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. > > If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do > that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better > lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. I'm sorry, Arindam, but you are under the mistaken impression that just about any old experimental result can be re-analyzed to support any theory you believe. In this way, experimental results could never distinguish between theories, in your mind, because no experiment can unambiguously rule out a theory. This is flat wrong.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 21 Feb 2010 20:18 On Feb 22, 7:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 8:39 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the > > only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your > > intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental > > measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, > > then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to > > make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there > > is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, > > and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the > > experimental results. > > > There is no way around this. > > > AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. > > I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can. > > Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand.http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old > > intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that > > light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. If this reason is > > ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. > > It is my job as an honest person to expose it. If someone has an issue, he > > can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. > > > If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do > > that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better > > lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee. > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but you are under the mistaken impression that > just about any old experimental result can be re-analyzed to support > any theory you believe. The word research means search again. I was doing just that. Research, to find out *new* things - that is the stuff of progress. So I can jolly well re-analyse old experimental results, inconvenient as they may be to the establishment. > In this way, experimental results could never > distinguish between theories, in your mind, because no experiment can > unambiguously rule out a theory. This is flat wrong. 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. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 21 Feb 2010 20:32 On Feb 22, 12:18 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 7:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 8:39 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the > > > only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your > > > intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental > > > measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, > > > then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to > > > make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there > > > is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, > > > and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the > > > experimental results. > > > > There is no way around this. > > > > AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. > > > I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can. > > > Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand.http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > > I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old > > > intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that > > > light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. If this reason is > > > ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. > > > It is my job as an honest person to expose it. If someone has an issue, he > > > can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. > > > > If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do > > > that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better > > > lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee. > > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but you are under the mistaken impression that > > just about any old experimental result can be re-analyzed to support > > any theory you believe. > > The word research means search again. I was doing just that. > Research, to find out *new* things - that is the stuff of progress. > So I can jolly well re-analyse old experimental results, inconvenient > as they may be to the establishment. > > > In this way, experimental results could never > > distinguish between theories, in your mind, because no experiment can > > unambiguously rule out a theory. This is flat wrong. > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively ruled out > by the fact of satellites, etc. Yeup > Similarly, SR has to be thrown out, Nope .. because it has never been refuted. every experiment to test it has given the results SR predicts > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most maths. No .. SR is perfectly consistent mathematically (including geometrically). It has a different geometry that is more consistent with reality that non-relativistic theories. > 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, Like your areticle > 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. WE can only dream. But I'm sure you will continue to post your erroneous article > There can be no argument! I see myself as > an honest engineer, We don't. Because you are not honest enough, or intelligent enough to see and admit to your mistakes > out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > break the speed of light barrier. Good luck with that > The bullshit of SR gets in the way > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. What a shame when reality gets in the way of your fantasies. Now .. are you going to deal with the reality of the errors in your article?
From: PD on 21 Feb 2010 20:39
On Feb 21, 7:18 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 7:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 8:39 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the > > > only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your > > > intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental > > > measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, > > > then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to > > > make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there > > > is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, > > > and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the > > > experimental results. > > > > There is no way around this. > > > > AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. > > > I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can. > > > Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand.http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > > I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old > > > intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that > > > light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. If this reason is > > > ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. > > > It is my job as an honest person to expose it. If someone has an issue, he > > > can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. > > > > If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do > > > that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better > > > lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee. > > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but you are under the mistaken impression that > > just about any old experimental result can be re-analyzed to support > > any theory you believe. > > The word research means search again. I was doing just that. > Research, to find out *new* things - that is the stuff of progress. > So I can jolly well re-analyse old experimental results, inconvenient > as they may be to the establishment. You are certainly free to do that. Be sure not to re-analyze *single* experiments, as relativity is supported by literally dozens of completely different experiments testing different aspects of relativity. A replacement model would have to explain that whole set simultaneously. > > > In this way, experimental results could never > > distinguish between theories, in your mind, because no experiment can > > unambiguously rule out a theory. This is flat wrong. > > 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. No sir. Logic and math do not serve to chuck theories. Relativity is completely internally consistent. In such a situation, the ONLY rationale for chucking a theory is if it makes a prediction that is completely inconsistent with experimental data. Do you have such data? > 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! As you please. > I see myself as > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > break the speed of light barrier. Best way to do that is to build it, no? > The bullshit of SR gets in the way > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. I doubt it. Research into proving relativity is wrong is funded all the time. I used to work with a guy that did that work for two decades, all that funded. It may be that you have other problems with your proposals, no? > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > |