Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Day Brown on 26 Feb 2010 00:56 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 you think is the Universe is just a pattern of energies that are detected. There really is no there there.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 26 Feb 2010 05:55 On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> 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. > > What you think is the Universe is just a pattern of energies that are > detected. There really is no there there.
From: Zinnic on 1 Mar 2010 13:02 On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> 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. 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. Regards Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 1 Mar 2010 16:56 On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 1 Mar 2010 17:17
On Mar 1, 3:56 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> 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! You act as though this were news. This is an old, old, old idea. Where have you been? > > > > > 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. Then stop looking at the MMX and look at the experiment by Filippas and Fox, which (among other experiments) clearly rules out ballistic light. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > > Regards > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |