Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 02:06 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:3ec1c4de-b4a1-4975-9ef7-fe5537d9910e(a)k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 4, 4:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> the doppler effect is just a shift of frequency, >> not the speed of either sound or light; > > The Doppler effect results in a shift of frequencey as the speed of > sound or light changes with the speed of whatever is emitting or > reflecting same. > >> such effects are pronounced in the bowshock >> of a moving object, naturally. > > Note the word, that you use - moving. > >> what instrument is used to measure permittivity & permeability, >> thus to "find" the speed of light > > Instruments used to study magnetic and electric fields. I could give > references, but any good electrical engineering text should do. You still refuse to discuss the lies your post in that article of yours.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 4 Mar 2010 05:34 On Mar 4, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > > news:3ec1c4de-b4a1-4975-9ef7-fe5537d9910e(a)k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 4:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> the doppler effect is just a shift of frequency, > >> not the speed of either sound or light; > > > The Doppler effect results in a shift of frequencey as the speed of > > sound or light changes with the speed of whatever is emitting or > > reflecting same. > > >> such effects are pronounced in the bowshock > >> of a moving object, naturally. > > > Note the word, that you use - moving. > > >> what instrument is used to measure permittivity & permeability, > >> thus to "find" the speed of light > > > Instruments used to study magnetic and electric fields. I could give > > references, but any good electrical engineering text should do. Now the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability depend a lot upon the medium. Thus the speed of light is less in glass than in thin air. Refraction happens because such is so - to maintain a costant phase front the light has to bend when going from lighter to denser medium. This is the factor behind optical lenses. Now, the sun's eclipse by the moon, showed the stars in a different position, and this apparently proved GR to the enisteinian's satisfaction. What they failed to take into account that the sun was actually working like an optical lens, by refracting the light from the stars by the matter extended all around it, through which the light from the stars was passing. The greatest palmjob in science, that! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 07:09 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:61271e7e-2ddc-487c-851c-06f9ae1c4081(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 4, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3ec1c4de-b4a1-4975-9ef7-fe5537d9910e(a)k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 4, 4:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> the doppler effect is just a shift of frequency, >> >> not the speed of either sound or light; >> >> > The Doppler effect results in a shift of frequencey as the speed of >> > sound or light changes with the speed of whatever is emitting or >> > reflecting same. >> >> >> such effects are pronounced in the bowshock >> >> of a moving object, naturally. >> >> > Note the word, that you use - moving. >> >> >> what instrument is used to measure permittivity & permeability, >> >> thus to "find" the speed of light >> >> > Instruments used to study magnetic and electric fields. I could give >> > references, but any good electrical engineering text should do. > > Now the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability depend a > lot upon the medium. Thus the speed of light is less in glass than in > thin air. Refraction happens because such is so - to maintain a > costant phase front the light has to bend when going from lighter to > denser medium. This is the factor behind optical lenses. Now, the > sun's eclipse by the moon, showed the stars in a different position, > and this apparently proved GR to the enisteinian's satisfaction. What > they failed to take into account that the sun was actually working > like an optical lens, by refracting the light from the stars by the > matter extended all around it, through which the light from the stars > was passing. The greatest palmjob in science, that! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee You still refuse to discuss your paper ..instead you reply to yourself. You are not only a liar but a coward.
From: Zinnic on 4 Mar 2010 17:25 On Mar 3, 8:22 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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: > > 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 inhttp://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. > > 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 ... >
From: Arindam Banerjee on 5 Mar 2010 04:07
On Mar 4, 11:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > > news:61271e7e-2ddc-487c-851c-06f9ae1c4081(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > > >>news:3ec1c4de-b4a1-4975-9ef7-fe5537d9910e(a)k18g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 4, 4:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> the doppler effect is just a shift of frequency, > >> >> not the speed of either sound or light; > > >> > The Doppler effect results in a shift of frequencey as the speed of > >> > sound or light changes with the speed of whatever is emitting or > >> > reflecting same. > > >> >> such effects are pronounced in the bowshock > >> >> of a moving object, naturally. > > >> > Note the word, that you use - moving. > > >> >> what instrument is used to measure permittivity & permeability, > >> >> thus to "find" the speed of light > > >> > Instruments used to study magnetic and electric fields. I could give > >> > references, but any good electrical engineering text should do. > > > Now the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability depend a > > lot upon the medium. Thus the speed of light is less in glass than in > > thin air. Refraction happens because such is so - to maintain a > > costant phase front the light has to bend when going from lighter to > > denser medium. This is the factor behind optical lenses. Now, the > > sun's eclipse by the moon, showed the stars in a different position, > > and this apparently proved GR to the enisteinian's satisfaction. What > > they failed to take into account that the sun was actually working > > like an optical lens, by refracting the light from the stars by the > > matter extended all around it, through which the light from the stars > > was passing. The greatest palmjob in science, that! > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > You still refuse to discuss your paper ..instead you reply to yourself. I cannot discuss anything scientific with ignorant, bigoted, stupid liars and scum who are thoroughly unscientific. Like you. You > are not only a liar but a coward. No. I am the greatest genius of all time. And as for you, what is your name? What is your fame? And don't lie! Why should I discuss anything with a unscientific no-name, abusive bag of slime, like you? Answer the above two questions, if you dare! You have made it perfectly clear that you do not want to even acknowledge what I am trying to say - you have only the wits to know that I am deviating from the relativistic dogma and their mindset. And you do not like that. I can sympathise with your pain, but must remind the world that relativity relates to science, not dogma. No one can argue with bigots. But relativity is not a faith, though to simple-minded careerists whose lives depend upon continuing same, it is nothing but a faith. Sad. Let us see, how long you lot can last. What next? What about the black hole you guys were about to make? What about heh-heh cheap energy from fusion? A few more zillions required, what? For very much less, and being profitable from the most early stages, the Hydrogen Transmission Network will solve the world's energy and pure water requirements! http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm That will be just the beginning... when we throw out the wrong 20th century physics, the scope of humanity will soar, reach the stars... Bigots like you, go suck your thumbs! Heh-heh Cheers, Arindam Banerjee - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |