Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Arindam Banerjee on 9 Feb 2010 01:13 I find that the no-name frauds are unwilling to take up any objective battle on this in the courts, and why should they? Any reputable physics guy who wants to defend the basis of SR is most welcome to do so, after he has thoroughly studied by objections to same in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm In any public space, I will be most happy to meet all questions in person. He may meet me at my residence, too. It has been pointed out in Usenet that the physics departments everywhere are being cut down drastically. Well, if their basis is false and they won't rectify it, what else can be expected? Sooner they all die, the better for new growth. Physics is far too fundamental, to be left in the charge of the liars. There was one pertinent observation raised (by Zinnic) - that the speed of sound is believed to be invariant wrt the speed of the emitter, and if such is so, why should not the speed of light be invariant? Well, there are two aspects here: - the speed of sound is most likely dependent upon the speed of the emitter, and a radar/sonar combination will prove this one way or the other - the speed of the light has to be invariant because: (Now these following points should be realised by intelligent ten year olds, and the average and literate 13 year olds, but I have grave doubts whether the einsteinians get it - none so blind as those who won't see...) * the sun is a very large object, not a chariot drawn across the sky by the Greek God Apollo. It is very heavy, much bigger than the earth. * there is this force meaning pull, we call gravity. Briefly it means that two bodies attract each other. Sir Isaac Newton found out this when he saw an apple fall on the ground. He gently wondered why this was so. The answer that he found is that the Earth is very big, and exerts this force gravity upon the apple. It thus pulls the apple towards it. And so the apple falls to the ground. * Now if the sun is very big, and the earth is so small, why does not the earth fall into the sun just like the apple falls into the ground? * Yes, if the earth is as still with respect to the sun as the apple is to the earth, then yes the earth should fall into the sun. * So why don't we fall into the sun?????? * BECAUSE THE EARTH IS MOVING * How do we know that? * Because on the whole we are not falling into the sun. * How does the Earth's movement prevent us from falling into the sun? * As much as we fall towards the sun, so much we move away from the sun, in a given time - simply because we are moving at right angles to the line joining the earth and the sun at any moment. We are falling all right towards the sun because of gravity, but the velocity or speed of the Earth makes us go sideways as well. Thus a constant distance is maintained. * Hmm. I will have to think more carefully about this. It looks different to what people have been saying. * At any rate, do you agree that the Earth is moving? * They all think so. Not quite from the way you put it, though. Anyway, let us assume that the Earth is moving, and continue. ********* * Take any distance and measure it. Take this ruler for instance, it is marked one meter. * ok, now what. * Now suppose you are a beam of light. You start from this one end and end at the other. How much distance have you covered? * Just one meter, of course. * Think again. Remember that this ruler is on the earth, and the earth is moving. * So? * By the time you reached that end, that end has already moved a little bit, as the earth is moving. * So as a beam of light I must travel a bit more or a bit less than the measured length? * It does not seem to be any other way! ******* * So what is this relativity business all about? * It all started when they found that no matter what the direction of light (in the direction of the earth's movement, or against, or any other angle) the time taken for the light to travel a certain distance was exactly the same. * So what did they expect otherwise? * They had expected a difference. Like in the direction of earth's velocity, they expected light to travel at higher than its speed by the amount of the earth's velocity. At right angles, the speed would not be the same. So, since they kept the physical distances same in both directions, they thought they would get a time difference. That time difference would give them a measure of the earth's speed v. It was thus a way to find the speed of the earth through space, or aether. * How did they explain this? * They made a statement that the speed of light did not vary with respect to the speed of the emitting source. So, the earth's speed does not add to the speed of light, the speed of light always remains the same. This was the way they explained the result of the experiment. * So what is the big deal from this? * One precocious 26 year old, Albert Einstein, took up on the experimental result that the speed of light was always the same, and irrespective of the emitting source's speed. He made that the first postulate of Special Relativity - it became the basis for his extraordinary research work which led to the equation e=mc^2, and a lot of other stuff besides. If we ever go to light speed, we will become immensely heavy, immensely short, etc. In short, we can never go beyond the speed of light. * A lot of science fiction is based upon this, right? * Indeed. And not just science fiction. **** * Now how do you say that all that was wrong? * Remember what we talked about earlier, about the earth moving? * yes. * Remember what we said about light travelling more or less than the measured distance on earth? * yes. * Well, well, well. See, right now above we just talked about how they did NOT take into consideration that the light actually travelled more or less than the measured distance? * yes, they did not take that into account. * but that was what we two discussed? * yes. * So we found out something they had not found out? * yes! We found out something NEW. **** * Now what? * Well you see, earlier they had held that the speed of light did vary with the speed of the emitter. * Right. * And we find that the distances travelled by the light are more or less, depending upon direction. * Right. * When you travel greater distances at greater speed, and lesser distances at lesser speed, correspondingly, you travel at the same time, right? * Should be so. * Mathematically, we have shown that it is so. * So what are you driving at? The greater distances travelled were travelled at higher speed of light due to the earth's motion, and so on? * You are getting it. * Then the speed of light is not constant. * Now that is exactly what I wanted you to say! finita la comedia Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Bappa on 9 Feb 2010 05:26 Putting some extra lines in the script. Hmm, maybe this should be posted to a harry potter newsgroup. Catch them young... for the old are hopeless, being brainwashed cowards. On Feb 9, 5:13 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > I find that the no-name frauds are unwilling to take up any objective battle > on this in the courts, and why should they? > > Any reputable physics guy who wants to defend the basis of SR is most > welcome to do so, after he has thoroughly studied by objections to same in > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > In any public space, I will be most happy to meet all questions in person.. > He may meet me at my residence, too. > > It has been pointed out in Usenet that the physics departments everywhere > are being cut down drastically. Well, if their basis is false and they > won't rectify it, what else can be expected? Sooner they all die, the > better for new growth. Physics is far too fundamental, to be left in the > charge of the liars. > > There was one pertinent observation raised (by Zinnic) - that the speed of > sound is believed to be invariant wrt the speed of the emitter, and if such > is so, why should not the speed of light be invariant? Well, there are two > aspects here: > - the speed of sound is most likely dependent upon the speed of the emitter, > and a radar/sonar combination will prove this one way or the other > - the speed of the light has to be invariant because: > > (Now these following points should be realised by intelligent ten year olds, > and the average and literate 13 year olds, but I have grave doubts whether > the einsteinians get it - none so blind as those who won't see...) > > * the sun is a very large object, not a chariot drawn across the sky by the > Greek God Apollo. It is very heavy, much bigger than the earth. > * there is this force meaning pull, we call gravity. Briefly it means that > two bodies attract each other. Sir Isaac Newton found out this when he saw > an apple fall on the ground. He gently wondered why this was so. The > answer that he found is that the Earth is very big, and exerts this force > gravity upon the apple. It thus pulls the apple towards it. And so the > apple falls to the ground. > * Now if the sun is very big, and the earth is so small, why does not the > earth fall into the sun just like the apple falls into the ground? > * Yes, if the earth is as still with respect to the sun as the apple is to > the earth, then yes the earth should fall into the sun. > * So why don't we fall into the sun?????? > * BECAUSE THE EARTH IS MOVING > * How do we know that? > * Because on the whole we are not falling into the sun. > * How does the Earth's movement prevent us from falling into the sun? > * As much as we fall towards the sun, so much we move away from the sun, in > a given time - simply because we are moving at right angles to the line > joining the earth and the sun at any moment. We are falling all right > towards the sun because of gravity, but the velocity or speed of the Earth > makes us go sideways as well. Thus a constant distance is maintained. > * Hmm. I will have to think more carefully about this. It looks different > to what people have been saying. > * At any rate, do you agree that the Earth is moving? > * They all think so. Not quite from the way you put it, though. Anyway, > let us assume that the Earth is moving, and continue. > > ********* > > * Take any distance and measure it. Take this ruler for instance, it is > marked one meter. > * ok, now what. > * Now suppose you are a beam of light. You start from this one end and end > at the other. How much distance have you covered? > * Just one meter, of course. > * Think again. Remember that this ruler is on the earth, and the earth is > moving. > * So? > * By the time you reached that end, that end has already moved a little bit, > as the earth is moving. > * I do not understand this quite well. Can you be a bit more clear? > * Okay. Say you want to catch your school bus. The door is at the front of the bus, and you are standing at the back of the bus. > * This I understand! > * Now, if the bus is not moving, you have to walk the length of the bus, right. > * Yep. > * Now if the bus is moving instead of just standing, what do you do? > * I run to get in. > * So you actually move a greater distance, right? Even though the length you effectively cover is only the length of the bus? If the bus is reversing, you similarly actually move a shorter length than the length of the bus.. > * Right! So as a beam of light I must travel a bit more or a bit less than the > measured length? > * It does not seem to be any other way! > > ******* > > * So what is this relativity business all about? > * It all started when they found that no matter what the direction of light > (in the direction of the earth's movement, or against, or any other angle) > the time taken for the light to travel a certain distance was exactly the > same. > * So what did they expect otherwise? > * They had expected a difference. Like in the direction of earth's > velocity, they expected light to travel at higher than its speed by the > amount of the earth's velocity. At right angles, the speed would not be the > same. So, since they kept the physical distances same in both directions, > they thought they would get a time difference. That time difference would > give them a measure of the earth's speed v. It was thus a way to find the > speed of the earth through space, or aether. > * How did they explain this? > * They made a statement that the speed of light did not vary with respect to > the speed of the emitting source. So, the earth's speed does not add to the > speed of light, the speed of light always remains the same. This was the > way they explained the result of the experiment. > * So what is the big deal from this? > * One precocious 26 year old, Albert Einstein, took up on the experimental > result that the speed of light was always the same, and irrespective of the > emitting source's speed. He made that the first postulate of Special > Relativity - it became the basis for his extraordinary research work which > led to the equation e=mc^2, and a lot of other stuff besides. If we ever go > to light speed, we will become immensely heavy, immensely short, etc. In > short, we can never go beyond the speed of light. > * A lot of science fiction is based upon this, right? > * Indeed. And not just science fiction. > > **** > > * Now how do you say that all that was wrong? > * Remember what we talked about earlier, about the earth moving? > * yes. > * Remember what we said about light travelling more or less than the > measured distance on earth? > * yes. > * Well, well, well. See, right now above we just talked about how they did > NOT take into consideration that the light actually travelled more or less > than the measured distance? > * yes, they did not take that into account. > * but that was what we two discussed? > * yes. > * So we found out something they had not found out? > * yes! We found out something NEW. > > **** > > * Now what? > * Well you see, earlier they had held that the speed of light did vary with > the speed of the emitter. > * Right. > * And we find that the distances travelled by the light are more or less, > depending upon direction. > * Right. > * When you travel greater distances at greater speed, and lesser distances > at lesser speed, correspondingly, you travel at the same time, right? > * Should be so. > * Mathematically, we have shown that it is so. > * So what are you driving at? The greater distances travelled were > travelled at higher speed of light due to the earth's motion, and so on? > * You are getting it. > * Then the speed of light is not constant. > * Now that is exactly what I wanted you to say! > > finita la comedia > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 9 Feb 2010 05:46 On Feb 8, 10:13 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > I find that the no-name frauds are unwilling to take up any objective battle > on this in the courts, and why should they? > > Any reputable physics guy who wants to defend the basis of SR is most > welcome to do so, after he has thoroughly studied by objections to same in > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm > > In any public space, I will be most happy to meet all questions in person.. > He may meet me at my residence, too. > > It has been pointed out in Usenet that the physics departments everywhere > are being cut down drastically. Well, if their basis is false and they > won't rectify it, what else can be expected? Sooner they all die, the > better for new growth. Physics is far too fundamental, to be left in the > charge of the liars. > > There was one pertinent observation raised (by Zinnic) - that the speed of > sound is believed to be invariant wrt the speed of the emitter, and if such > is so, why should not the speed of light be invariant? Well, there are two > aspects here: > - the speed of sound is most likely dependent upon the speed of the emitter, > and a radar/sonar combination will prove this one way or the other > - the speed of the light has to be invariant because: > > (Now these following points should be realised by intelligent ten year olds, > and the average and literate 13 year olds, but I have grave doubts whether > the einsteinians get it - none so blind as those who won't see...) > > * the sun is a very large object, not a chariot drawn across the sky by the > Greek God Apollo. It is very heavy, much bigger than the earth. > * there is this force meaning pull, we call gravity. Briefly it means that > two bodies attract each other. Sir Isaac Newton found out this when he saw > an apple fall on the ground. He gently wondered why this was so. The > answer that he found is that the Earth is very big, and exerts this force > gravity upon the apple. It thus pulls the apple towards it. And so the > apple falls to the ground. > * Now if the sun is very big, and the earth is so small, why does not the > earth fall into the sun just like the apple falls into the ground? > * Yes, if the earth is as still with respect to the sun as the apple is to > the earth, then yes the earth should fall into the sun. > * So why don't we fall into the sun?????? > * BECAUSE THE EARTH IS MOVING > * How do we know that? > * Because on the whole we are not falling into the sun. > * How does the Earth's movement prevent us from falling into the sun? > * As much as we fall towards the sun, so much we move away from the sun, in > a given time - simply because we are moving at right angles to the line > joining the earth and the sun at any moment. We are falling all right > towards the sun because of gravity, but the velocity or speed of the Earth > makes us go sideways as well. Thus a constant distance is maintained. > * Hmm. I will have to think more carefully about this. It looks different > to what people have been saying. > * At any rate, do you agree that the Earth is moving? > * They all think so. Not quite from the way you put it, though. Anyway, > let us assume that the Earth is moving, and continue. > > ********* > > * Take any distance and measure it. Take this ruler for instance, it is > marked one meter. > * ok, now what. > * Now suppose you are a beam of light. You start from this one end and end > at the other. How much distance have you covered? > * Just one meter, of course. > * Think again. Remember that this ruler is on the earth, and the earth is > moving. > * So? > * By the time you reached that end, that end has already moved a little bit, > as the earth is moving. > * So as a beam of light I must travel a bit more or a bit less than the > measured length? > * It does not seem to be any other way! > > ******* > > * So what is this relativity business all about? > * It all started when they found that no matter what the direction of light > (in the direction of the earth's movement, or against, or any other angle) > the time taken for the light to travel a certain distance was exactly the > same. > * So what did they expect otherwise? > * They had expected a difference. Like in the direction of earth's > velocity, they expected light to travel at higher than its speed by the > amount of the earth's velocity. At right angles, the speed would not be the > same. So, since they kept the physical distances same in both directions, > they thought they would get a time difference. That time difference would > give them a measure of the earth's speed v. It was thus a way to find the > speed of the earth through space, or aether. > * How did they explain this? > * They made a statement that the speed of light did not vary with respect to > the speed of the emitting source. So, the earth's speed does not add to the > speed of light, the speed of light always remains the same. This was the > way they explained the result of the experiment. > * So what is the big deal from this? > * One precocious 26 year old, Albert Einstein, took up on the experimental > result that the speed of light was always the same, and irrespective of the > emitting source's speed. He made that the first postulate of Special > Relativity - it became the basis for his extraordinary research work which > led to the equation e=mc^2, and a lot of other stuff besides. If we ever go > to light speed, we will become immensely heavy, immensely short, etc. In > short, we can never go beyond the speed of light. > * A lot of science fiction is based upon this, right? > * Indeed. And not just science fiction. > > **** > > * Now how do you say that all that was wrong? > * Remember what we talked about earlier, about the earth moving? > * yes. > * Remember what we said about light travelling more or less than the > measured distance on earth? > * yes. > * Well, well, well. See, right now above we just talked about how they did > NOT take into consideration that the light actually travelled more or less > than the measured distance? > * yes, they did not take that into account. > * but that was what we two discussed? > * yes. > * So we found out something they had not found out? > * yes! We found out something NEW. > > **** > > * Now what? > * Well you see, earlier they had held that the speed of light did vary with > the speed of the emitter. > * Right. > * And we find that the distances travelled by the light are more or less, > depending upon direction. > * Right. > * When you travel greater distances at greater speed, and lesser distances > at lesser speed, correspondingly, you travel at the same time, right? > * Should be so. > * Mathematically, we have shown that it is so. > * So what are you driving at? The greater distances travelled were > travelled at higher speed of light due to the earth's motion, and so on? > * You are getting it. > * Then the speed of light is not constant. > * Now that is exactly what I wanted you to say! > > finita la comedia > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > I agree. Like you, I don't understand relativity. And if you and I don't understand something - it must be false.
From: Zinnic on 9 Feb 2010 17:50 On Feb 9, 12:13 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: Snip for brevity (Zinnic) Arindam I apologise for my previous typo re your name. Let us again discuss your misconception regarding the speed of sound in a media. You draw on this analogy to support your misconception that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. You are in fact incorrect in claiming that the speed of sound is increased when its source is moving toward the receiver and is decreased when the source is moving away. Let us say that the speed of sound emitted from a stationary emitter is S. According to you, when the sound source is moving towards the receiver at a speed of v then the speed of the sound will increase from S to an additive speed of S + v. Now consider a sound source moving towards the receiver at a speed of S. Again according to you, the sound will move at S + S = 2S. How then does a supersonic airplane or rocket break the sound barrier? No matter how fast the plane is going it can never catch up to the sound it emits because that sound will always exceed the speed of the plane (v) by S (the speed of sound from a stationary source). The speed of sound is independent of the speed of its source, such that a single shot fired from a gun mounted on a moving train will be heard at the same time by receivers located at the perimeter circumscibed by a radius centered by the point at which the gun was fired. That is the speed of sound from a moving (or stationary) emitter is the same constant (in still air) in every direction! The frequency of the sound will differ (Dopplar effect) but will be compensated by an appropriate change in wavelength according to Speed (constant) = frequency x wavelength. Thus, you cannot use sound transmission as an analogy to support your claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of its source. Regards Zinnic Ps. I believe your additive notion of S + v is correct when v represents the rate of movement of the transmitting media towards a motionless reciever. For example, the movement of air (wind), the media transmitting sound. However, this cannot be applied to the aether that transmits light (or do you also contest that?).
From: Arindam Banerjee on 17 Feb 2010 01:53
On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 9, 12:13 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > Snip for brevity (Zinnic) > > Arindam I apologise for my previous typo re your name. Accepted. > Let us again discuss your misconception regarding the speed of sound > in a media. Let us see who is misconceiving. >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where prejudice triumphs over reason. > > You are in fact incorrect in claiming that the speed of sound is > increased when its source is moving toward the receiver and is > decreased when the source is moving away. In any case, this is not germane to the issue of SR. You are just making a statement. I dispute it. The only way out is to perform an experiment and let third parties decide. I can only agree when things are proven to me with experiment. True I have not performed an experiment using radar and sonar, but my experience with subsonic fighters going over my head is good enough. And it all can be shown with maths, as I have indicated in earlier posts. > Let us say that the speed of sound emitted from a stationary emitter > is S. According to you, when the sound source is moving towards the > receiver at a speed of v then the speed of the sound will increase > from S to an additive speed of S + v. Yes. > Now consider a sound source moving towards the receiver at a speed of > S. Again according to you, the sound will move at S + S = 2S. How > then does a supersonic airplane or rocket break the sound barrier? The same way as a viman going at super light speed will break the so- called light barrier. What is really happening is that since the sound is travelling so fast, it does not stay with the receiver on the ground for a long time. Only a very short time, as the source is coming to him on the ground. But as it leaves or goes the other way, it stays with the receiver for a very long time. > No matter how fast the plane is going it can never catch up to the > sound it emits because that sound will always exceed the speed of the > plane (v) by S (the speed of sound from a stationary source). Yes, of course. Like if I throw out a beam of light from a viman going at 2c, in the forward direction it will go at 3c and in the backward at c. Of course the plane won't catch up with the sound it emits. Why should it? > The speed of sound is independent of the speed of its source, As I said, this is just a statement. No proof. I hold that it is an incorrect statement, based upon my personal experiene of planes flying over my head. such > that a single shot fired from a gun mounted on a moving train will be > heard at the same time by receivers located at the perimeter > circumscibed by a radius centered by the point at which the gun was > fired. Prove it. This is just a statement, and I feel sure it is completely wrong. It can be done using military radar and sonar. We will find that the speed of sound is different in different directions for a moving object. This comes from the very nature of waves. Yes I need to elaborate on this and maybe I will when I get more respect for my new and brilliant theories. > That is the speed of sound from a moving (or stationary) > emitter is the same constant (in still air) in every direction! > The frequency of the sound will differ (Dopplar effect) but will be > compensated by an appropriate change in wavelength according to Speed > (constant) = frequency x wavelength. Exactly the sort of rubbish that was concocted to support the bullshit SR theories - they had to make the speed of sound constant, like they had to make the c constatnt! The wavelength does not change, silly, the waves only move faster past the receiver as the speed is now higher, and so the frequency count goes up at the receiver. This is shown as the Doppler effect, which proves the fact that the speed of sound varies with the speed of the emitter. > Thus, you cannot use sound transmission as an analogy to support your > claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of its > source. > Regards > Zinnic > Ps. I believe your additive notion of S + v is correct when v > represents the rate of movement of the transmitting media towards a > motionless reciever. For example, the movement of air (wind), the > media transmitting sound. However, this cannot be applied to the > aether that transmits light (or do you also contest that?). Please read carefully all that I have written, and you should understand. It may take some time for you to unlearn the wrong ideas. I think I have made all my points as clearly and simply as possible. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |