Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 5 Mar 2010 11:57 I don't care what breed of netdoggy you are, mister I Am The Greatest Boxer of All Spacetime; I did not ask for references on the measurement (as opposed to the mathematical derivations) of permitivity and permeability, just an evocation of the instruments! thus quoth: Its [corpuscular theory] place is taken by the undulatory theory, first suggested by Huygens in 1690, reconciled to some extent with the discoveries of Newton by Euler, advocated by Hartley, and finally established by a study of the phenomenon of interference by Thomas Young and by Fresnel. This theory gives a complete explanation of all phenomena of light. According to this view, light, objectively considered, is simply a mode of motion of a substance called the luminiferous ether which pervades not only what is commonly regarded as space, but also all translucent substances. By the molecular movements of luminous bodies, this ether is set vibrating in a series of waves. thus: are you horning-in on the Wolframites -- did your daddy uncover an element of the periodical table, NoMendeleyeev? > my New Science, and the present post. NoEinstein thus: ah, a Reverse Engineer from the Shrine of Roswell, New Mexico -- OMG, shag me with a spoon, rolling on the floor, trying to supress laughter (in a library). thus quoth: When airliners are in level flight, and traveling at cruising speed, you are still being pushed back in your seat, slightly, by the ether flowing through the plane. You will notice that you seem to be walking up hill when going to the little plumbing room. read Alfven. in the meantime, positrons spiral in the opposite bubble-tracks to electrons, as has been known for decades. >How would you identify an individual positron if it was emited? thus: wow; what Al and PD said about the pointiness of electrons, I'd never read of, before; prove them wrong! thus: didn't finish, but it began rather nicely. also, see about Weber's "magnetic molecule" as http://21stcenturysciencetech.com -- or knot. > http://www.amperefitz.com/lawrm.htm thus: the speed of light depends upon the density of the medium, viz the index of refraction, cf. the brachistochrone (tautochrone) of Bernoulli and Liebniz, the cannonical problem that defined "the" caclulus. the speed of sound depends upon the density of the medium; about 600mph at sea-level; clearly, that is an upper bound on the speed of wind at sea-level! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 5 Mar 2010 19:09 On Mar 6, 1:23 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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 Dear Zinnic, After reading the above I am besides myself with joy! At last *someone* has got at least half of it! Thank you so very much for your time and patience. Please give me a while, to sort out your requests. I will be back, a bit busy now what with the weekend on. Great, great, great! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: spudnik on 6 Mar 2010 23:05 Michelson & Morley did not get no results, and those results were refined by D.C.Miller et al; and, well, Einstein po0-pood it at his office in Caltech, after being given the paper. (wish that I could recall, what old, bound journal that was in, or at least which library.) thus: Waxman's bill makes the USA's large, voluntary cap&trade, a mandatory one, like the much-larger EU one. anyway, the same effects can be achieved with a (small) carbon tax, instead of just letting the arbitrageurs make all of the "credit" -- as with Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill under HW (for NOx and SO2, viz acid rain). > The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has > fallen sharply over the last 18 months. > After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is > currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of > several European carbon exchanges. > Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the > environment. > But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and > install new technologies to slash future emissions. http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-rss-news/eus-carbon-fat-cats-g... thus: any demolition, "controlled" or not, will produce a catastrophic collapse that is essentially "free falling;" it is particularly true of "skyscrapers" that were built with only secondary consideration given to tension (that is to say, they are heavily over-engineered; see "tensegrity,' if you can restrain yourself from googoling it .-) thus: the OP's 2-meter-per-second-or-less turbines wouldn't neccesarily scale for higher speeds; that's the problem with wind's huge dynamic range (and this applies just as much to drag on vehicles -- no dragsters with good mileage), although I'm not sure of the power-law, since I have not proven it, myself. thus: I never saw that bin Laden really claimed that Queda did it, nor have I seen proof that President Cheeny didn't allow it (or, possibly just some thing, acoording to Mineta) to happen. But, who are the muslim phsikists, who think that those planes had constituted inadequate bombs (per comparison to what is required for Cheeny to do it in the basement for a week with the engineer) ?? > Now our enemies know we were hoodwinked too. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6251AO20100306 --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://21stcenturysciencetech.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan! http://laroucehpub.com
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 01:53 You're still a coward who refused to discuss the lies he publishes in his article. I'd say that is the behaviour of a dishonest man who has something to hide.
From: Zinnic on 7 Mar 2010 08:49
On Mar 7, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > You're still a coward who refused to discuss the lies he publishes in his > article. I'd say that is the behaviour of a dishonest man who has something > to hide. I believe that Arindam is mistaken in his criticism of the river analogy for the MMX and in his apparent claim that there is no valid evidence to support Special Relativity. However, I am sure that all experts concede his claim that the ballistic theory re the speed of light (even if incorrect) is consistent with the null result obtained in that experiment. I contested this and he respectfully corrected me about the inertial frames of reference that I was using. The same experts seem only to be contesting the validity of the ballistic theory favored by Arindam who seems to be hung up on the river/swimmer analogy for the MMX. I may be wrong but I find it difficult to accept that Arindam is being deliberately dishonest. What do you believe he could he gain from this? Regards Zinnic |