Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Arindam Banerjee on 3 Mar 2010 21:22 On Mar 4, 10:45 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:36 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 3, 1:17 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > > > 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. No. My theory (which is actually not mine but that of the 19th century physicists) is that speed of light (emitted or reflected) had to take into account the speed of whatever was transmitting or reflecting it. So the light from the emitter is c+v/c-v depending upon direction in linear space, and c-v/c+v correspondingly from the reflector. This is very clear from the text in the text book I quoted from in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm D+d/D-d is derived from the motion of > the the mirrors (agreed), not of the emitter. Both emitter and mirrors. For the emitter also moves as the same velocity v as the mirrors. Thus from emitter to mirror, in the forward direction, the speed of light is c+v and the distance is D+d, as d is the distance the mirror or reflector is moved. In the opposite direction, the distance moved by light at speed c-v is D-d, as now the emitter has moved forward by the distance d. This is the real point, the whole apparatus is moving with the earth, and nothing is stuck to the ether,as this is impossible. (Which was incorrectly assumed implicitly, and the source of so much nonesense and grief). > 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). No problem at all from my side at least, just see above. > >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, so take a ballistic example, as light is ballistic as you put it! Using a boy and a ball and two buses. We have a ground at surface zero velocity reference, agreed? This is equivalent to ether. A bus A1 travels on this ground at 50 kmph. Another bus B1 goes in front at same speed, 50 Kmph. This is v. A boy throws a ball from A1 towards B1 at 80 kmph with respect to A1. This is c. With respect to ground this is 80+50=130 Km, right? c+v = 130 The ball strikes the rear of bus B1. Now the question is, at what speed will it bounce back? We make two assumptions. 1. The ball comes back with equal velocity (assuming no energy losses this is a fair assumption) when both buses are stationary. Thus the rear of the bus acts like a wall at which all of us have at some time or the other thrown a ball. Experience (from say squash players) has it that it does seem to come back with the same speed. 2. Wind factors, air loss, etc. do not matter. Now with respect to the ground, the ball is moving at 130 kmph. But since bus B1 is moving at 50 Kmph, the ball will strike it with a velocity of 130-50 = 80 Kmph or c. As per assumption 1, the ball will bounce back with the same speed 80Kmph, but in the opposite direction now. This 80 Km speed will be with reference to the bus's rear end. Not the ground. With respect to the ground, the ball's speed will be 80-50 = 30 Kmph. c-v = 30. Well, we need not have two buses to show this experiment, just try it next time you are in a moving train. Throw a ball at the wall in front of you, and catch it as it bounces back. Will take about the same time - irrespective of the motion or velocity of the train. Take another example now. Suppose instead of bus B1, there is a fixed wall. Then what happens? The wall is hit at 130, it returns ball at 130 wrt ground. And it hits the boy or bus A1 at 130+50 = 180 kmph! Sorry, Zinnic, I have to go now. Please make sure you understand the above, and let me know if you have not. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > 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. > 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. > 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. > 4) We agree that a stationary mirror will reflect incident light at > the same speed in the opposite direction. > 5) You claim that a mirror travelling at v in the same or opposite > direction of incident light travelling at C will reflect that light > at C-v or C+v, respectively. > > Thus, according to your theory for front and rear mirrors moving at v > (relative to a fixed ether), it follows that light with a speed of C > +v incident to the front mirror will be reflected at (C+v) -v and > light with a speed of C-v incident to the rear mirror will be > reflected ar (C-v)+v. All of these speeds being relative to a fixed > ether (if any). > That is light will be reflected from both mirrors at a speed of C. > Therefore, because the light (speed C) reflected from the rear mirror > mirror must travel D+d back to the source it will take a longer time > than light (speed C) reflected from the front mirror which has to > travel only D-d. That is, time (D+d)/C > time (D-v)/C which is > contrary to the experimental null result observed for this mirror set > up ( nb-not the MMX setup). > > > The 19th century physicists were I believe perfectly correct - as > > stated in the textbook - in holding that the light going back/forward > > would be c-v/c+v in velocity. There is no difference between > > reflected light, or directly emitted light,so far as their speed goes > > - speed of both depend upon the emitter/reflector. > > > Incident light is only the cause of the reflected light, which is > > dependent upon the medium and the velocity of the source (in this > > case, the reflector). > > The medium is not a factor because it is the same for incident and > reflected light! > > > > That is, light would > > > return at C from the fore mirror (D-d) in a time of (D-d)/C and from > > > the rear mirror (D+d) in a time of (D+d)/C. Light from the fore mirror > > > would arrive sooner than the light from the rear mirror. This has > > > been shown experimentally NOT to be the case. > > > > Thus my question remains, why is the reflected light NOT affected by > > > the speed of the mirrors? > > > It is affected by the speed of the mirrors. Look at an extreme > > example. Suppose you are travelling at c and send a beam of light in > > front. It hits a static object, at speed 2c (as per my theory). Let > > us say it reflects the light. I expect the reflected light will have > > velocity c, not 2c. However, going by my knowledge of antenna theory > > (upon which light is really based) the frequency of light that is > > reflected will double! Interesting point, this, and will be of use > > when we make interstellar spaceships that will try to communicate at > > super light speeds! > > You are confusing me. > Now you claim that incident light (2xC) is reflected from a reflector > (mirror) at half speed (C) and with twice its frequency? To my > knowledge this has not been observed. I was never a Physics major so I > would appreciate knowing on what this is based. > Perhaps I would better understand if you could furthur explain your > claim that light incident at C+v is reflected at C-v by a mirror > moving at v (with all speeds being relative to a fixed motionless > ether). > Thanx and regards > Zinnic
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 22:06 there is a simple explanation: there is no vacuum; that is to say, the "speed of light in vacuuo" is only a limit, that is never quite achieved even by light. this nonvacuuo is the medium through which the alleged photon must go. I'm really getting tired of playing with Schroedinger's undead cat! thus: in deed, one ought to write the book, A Brief History of Schroedinger's Putty-tat! > the particle & wave evocations are duals; > (Shcroedinger's and/or Pauli's e.g.). thus: so, if the 1st conj. is (or leads to) the twin primes one, then what is the 2nd conjecture of Littlewood and Hardy?... and, why would one not believe, there is no end to twin primes? > I too have noted that the Harris approach is very similar to the first > H-L conjecture and I would add Merten's Third Theorem. His approach is > not better as he leaves out an important constant but it can still be > used to do useful work with twin primes. --Light, A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas!http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/ 100303kesha_victory.html
From: spudnik on 3 Mar 2010 22:08 don't top-post; "read more!"
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 22:40 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:9e14bedc-03ed-4cf2-8b14-835096a4e5ef(a)k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > No. My theory (which is actually not mine but that of the 19th > century physicists) is that speed of light (emitted or reflected) had > to take into account the speed of whatever was transmitting or > reflecting it. So the light from the emitter is c+v/c-v depending > upon direction in linear space, and c-v/c+v correspondingly from the > reflector. This is very clear from the text in the text book I quoted > from in > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm You still REFUSE to discuss the HUGE problems and errors in that article. Is it because you are just a fraud and liar and afraid of being exposed? There must be SOME reason why you are unwilling to discuss it.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 4 Mar 2010 00:18
On Mar 4, 2:06 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > there is a simple explanation: there is no vacuum; > that is to say, the "speed of light in vacuuo" is only a limit, > that is never quite achieved even by light. The speed of light is found from two physical constants arising from Maxwell's travelling wave formula. Actual measurement of the speed of light, and what is found from the two constants (magnetic permeability and electric permittivity, both very well known to all electrical engineers) match very well, and is to this day the strongest evidence of the wave nature of light. All waves need a medium for propagation (sound does not travel in vacuum) and the medium of light or all electromagnetic waves is ether or aether. As the Doppler effect clearly shows, for sound at any rate, the speed of the emitter matters indeed. Similarly for light. Thus while all emitters emit at c, the speed adds or subtracts with respect to the ether. Just as in sound. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |