Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Arindam Banerjee on 5 Mar 2010 04:11 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. D+d/D-d is derived from the motion of > the the mirrors (agreed), not of the emitter. 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). > > >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, looks like we are clear so far. Now let us continue. > 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. Yes. > 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. Yes. > 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. Yes. > 4) We agree that a stationary mirror will reflect incident light at > the same speed in the opposite direction. No. There cannot be a stationary mirror in ether. There can be no such thing, for the mirror is on the earth, and the earth is moving with velocity v. Okay for now. Indicate that you agree and we shall continue. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > 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: Peter Webb on 5 Mar 2010 06:41 No. There cannot be a stationary mirror in ether. There can be no such thing, for the mirror is on the earth, and the earth is moving with velocity v. _____________________________ What speed is the earth moving with respect to the ether, ie what is the value of "v" ? And how did you work it out?
From: Inertial on 5 Mar 2010 05:43 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:4ba9e9f1-187f-40e3-bf30-9d1931738f62(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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. Totally wrong. > You >> are not only a liar but a coward. > > No. I am the greatest genius of all time. See .. you're a liar > And as for you, what is > your name? What is your fame? And don't lie! I never lie > Why should I discuss anything with a unscientific no-name, abusive bag > of slime, like you? I tell you why you won't' because you're scared .. you know that I can see through your lies and nonsense. And you're afraid you'll have your lies exposed for what they are > 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 No .. I didn't > - you have only the wits to know > that I am deviating from the relativistic dogma and their mindset. NO .. I can see EXACTLY what you are doing wrong. You just refused to discuss it , like the coward you are > And you do not like that. I can sympathise with your pain, No pain > but must > remind the world that relativity relates to science, not dogma. Indeed it does .. unlike the nonsense you post > No one can argue with bigots. That's why its so hard ot argue with you. > But relativity is not a faith, though to > simple-minded careerists whose lives depend upon continuing same, it > is nothing but a faith. Not at all > Sad. Let us see, how long you lot can last. In what way? > What next? What about > the black hole you guys were about to make? I have no plans for making black holes > What about heh-heh cheap > energy from fusion? I have no plans for making fusion reactors > 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! Thanks for proving you rare nothing but a lying coward. I've thrown down the gauntlet .. you run away with your tail between your legs crying 'bigot'. You're nothing and nobody.. get used to it.
From: Zinnic on 5 Mar 2010 09:23 On Mar 5, 3:11 am, 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: > > > > > > > > > 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. D+d/D-d is derived from the motion of > > the the mirrors (agreed), not of the emitter. 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). > > > >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, looks like we are clear so far. Now let us continue. > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > 4) We agree that a stationary mirror will reflect incident light at > > the same speed in the opposite direction. > > No. There cannot be a stationary mirror in ether. There can be no > such thing, for the mirror is on the earth, and the earth is moving > with velocity v. > > Okay for now. Indicate that you agree and we shall continue. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > You are indeed correct regarding the light reflection. With a static light transmitting medium (if one exists) as the frame of refererence, the incident light of speed C+v and C-v would be reflected from the front and rear mirrors at C-v and C+v, respectively. My contention that both would be reflected at a speed of C is incorrect and applies, as you pointed out, only when for the emitter and mirrors (Earth) is the frame of reference. The overall time for light to return from the front and rear mirrors then will be identical even though the emitter and mirrors are moving with Earth thru space.The same null result that occurs when the Earth is used as the frame of reference or when the Einstein's proposed constancy of the maximum speed of light (C) in its transmitting medium is used for calculating the times involved. I agree that the MMX null result, involving the time for orthoganaly directed light to return to its source, is to be expected for both your vectorial speed of light (square root [c^2+v^2] ) theory and for Einstein's constancy of the maximum speed (C). This leaves me with a choice. You or Einstein! Evidence supporting Einstein is claimed from the time in which muons reach Earth versus their half life, from clocks speeding around Earth in jet planes, and from the correction factors required for the accuracy of GPS. No doubt an Einstein supporter will provide an impressive list of favourable evidence. 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
From: PD on 5 Mar 2010 10:48
On Mar 5, 3:07 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > 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. Oh dear. There's really nothing more to say, after you've said something like this. > 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 - > > |