Prev: I am groovy
Next: evidence points more to a massless neutrino than a tiny rest mass #597 Correcting Math
From: Arindam Banerjee on 13 Apr 2010 21:10
These two simple mathematical equations:

#1 c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V, for wave motion where v=0 is rest speed with
respect to a given reference for the origin of the wave, and V is the
physical speed of the carrier of the wave with respect to that
reference;


and


#2 E = 0.5 m*N*v*v*(N-k), where N is very large and k is small, and v
is the incremental speed to the body with each individual application
of internal force;


describe natural phenomena admirably, from the Doppler effect,
redshift, etc. to the energy from the sun, earth, nukes, tsunamis,
and
even the lighting of a match.

Equation #1 is evident from nature, and rigorously from the null
results of the MMI experiment.
Equation #2 is based upon generalisations of Newton's first and third
law of motion.

Thus:
Every body moves in a straight line, or remains at rest, unless
obliged otherwise by force.
Note: In this revised first law, the adjective "external" that
qualified the word "force" is dropped.

And:
To every action there is an equal reaction.
Note: Here in the revised third law, the additional adjective
"opposite" qualifying the word "reaction" is dropped.

These upset the shonky theories relating to Special/General
Relativity, and entropy, and will revolutionise physics.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

adda1234#bigpond.com




From: artful on 13 Apr 2010 22:05
On Apr 14, 11:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> These two simple mathematical equations:
>
> #1 c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V, for wave motion where v=0 is rest speed with
> respect to a given reference for the origin of the wave, and V is the
> physical speed of the carrier of the wave with respect to that
> reference;

What is this 'c' function that takes a true/false value? You've not
explained it at all.

Are you just saying v' = v+V is how to add velocities v+V ?

> and
>
> #2 E = 0.5 m*N*v*v*(N-k), where N is very large and k is small, and v
> is the incremental speed to the body with each individual application
> of internal force;

so

E = 1/2mv^2 . N(N-k)

What are N and k ??

That's just saying the energy is a factor multiplied by the kinetic
energy .. which is nonsense.

> describe natural phenomena admirably, from the Doppler effect,
> redshift, etc. to the energy from the sun, earth, nukes, tsunamis,
> and
> even the lighting of a match.

Not really

> Equation #1 is evident from nature, and rigorously from the null
> results of the MMI experiment.

If its addition of velocities, then it is refuted experimentally

> Equation #2 is based upon generalisations of Newton's first and third
> law of motion.
>
> Thus:
> Every body moves in a straight line, or remains at rest, unless
> obliged otherwise by force.
> Note: In this revised first law, the adjective "external" that
> qualified the word "force" is dropped.
>
> And:
> To every action there is an equal reaction.
> Note: Here in the revised third law, the additional adjective
> "opposite" qualifying the word "reaction" is dropped.
>
> These upset the shonky theories relating to Special/General
> Relativity, and entropy, and will revolutionise physics.

No .. they are just nonsense you have written down. They don't
'upset' anything

> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
> adda1234#bigpond.com

From: xxein on 14 Apr 2010 19:38
On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > These two simple mathematical equations:
>
> > #1 c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V, for wave motion where v=0 is rest speed with
> > respect to a given reference for the origin of the wave, and V is the
> > physical speed of the carrier of the wave with respect to that
> > reference;
>
> What is this 'c' function that takes a true/false value?  You've not
> explained it at all.
>
> Are you just saying v' = v+V is how to add velocities v+V ?
>
> > and
>
> > #2 E = 0.5 m*N*v*v*(N-k), where N is very large and k is small, and v
> > is the incremental speed to the body with each individual application
> > of internal force;
>
> so
>
> E = 1/2mv^2 . N(N-k)
>
> What are N and k ??
>
> That's just saying the energy is a factor multiplied by the kinetic
> energy .. which is nonsense.
>
> > describe natural phenomena admirably, from the Doppler effect,
> > redshift, etc. to the energy from the sun, earth, nukes, tsunamis,
> > and
> > even the lighting of a match.
>
> Not really
>
> > Equation #1 is evident from nature, and rigorously from the null
> > results of the MMI experiment.
>
> If its addition of velocities, then it is refuted experimentally
>
>
>
>
>
> > Equation #2 is based upon generalisations of Newton's first and third
> > law of motion.
>
> > Thus:
> > Every body moves in a straight line, or remains at rest, unless
> > obliged otherwise by force.
> > Note: In this revised first law, the adjective "external" that
> > qualified the word "force" is dropped.
>
> > And:
> > To every action there is an equal reaction.
> > Note: Here in the revised third law, the additional adjective
> > "opposite" qualifying the word "reaction" is dropped.
>
> > These upset the shonky theories relating to Special/General
> > Relativity, and entropy, and will revolutionise physics.
>
> No .. they are just nonsense you have written down.  They don't
> 'upset' anything
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> > adda1234#bigpond.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: You are obviously not qualified to determine the physic.
Don't pretend and get out of here now.
From: whoever on 14 Apr 2010 19:41
"xxein" <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:a788b198-a2d8-422b-8111-6bec6a90852d(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 11:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > These two simple mathematical equations:
>>
>> > #1 c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V, for wave motion where v=0 is rest speed with
>> > respect to a given reference for the origin of the wave, and V is the
>> > physical speed of the carrier of the wave with respect to that
>> > reference;
>>
>> What is this 'c' function that takes a true/false value? You've not
>> explained it at all.
>>
>> Are you just saying v' = v+V is how to add velocities v+V ?
>>
>> > and
>>
>> > #2 E = 0.5 m*N*v*v*(N-k), where N is very large and k is small, and v
>> > is the incremental speed to the body with each individual application
>> > of internal force;
>>
>> so
>>
>> E = 1/2mv^2 . N(N-k)
>>
>> What are N and k ??
>>
>> That's just saying the energy is a factor multiplied by the kinetic
>> energy .. which is nonsense.
>>
>> > describe natural phenomena admirably, from the Doppler effect,
>> > redshift, etc. to the energy from the sun, earth, nukes, tsunamis,
>> > and
>> > even the lighting of a match.
>>
>> Not really
>>
>> > Equation #1 is evident from nature, and rigorously from the null
>> > results of the MMI experiment.
>>
>> If its addition of velocities, then it is refuted experimentally
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Equation #2 is based upon generalisations of Newton's first and third
>> > law of motion.
>>
>> > Thus:
>> > Every body moves in a straight line, or remains at rest, unless
>> > obliged otherwise by force.
>> > Note: In this revised first law, the adjective "external" that
>> > qualified the word "force" is dropped.
>>
>> > And:
>> > To every action there is an equal reaction.
>> > Note: Here in the revised third law, the additional adjective
>> > "opposite" qualifying the word "reaction" is dropped.
>>
>> > These upset the shonky theories relating to Special/General
>> > Relativity, and entropy, and will revolutionise physics.
>>
>> No .. they are just nonsense you have written down. They don't
>> 'upset' anything
>>
>>
>>
>> > Cheers,
>> > Arindam Banerjee
>>
>> > adda1234#bigpond.com- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein: You are obviously not qualified to determine the physic.
> Don't pretend and get out of here now.

who?



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Mahipal7638 on 14 Apr 2010 20:38
On Apr 14, 7:41 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
> "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a788b198-a2d8-422b-8111-6bec6a90852d(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 10:05 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 11:10 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > These two simple mathematical equations:
>
> >> > #1 c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V, for wave motion where v=0 is rest speed with
> >> > respect to a given reference for the origin of the wave, and V is the
> >> > physical speed of the carrier of the wave with respect to that
> >> > reference;
>
> >> What is this 'c' function that takes a true/false value?  You've not
> >> explained it at all.
>
> >> Are you just saying v' = v+V is how to add velocities v+V ?
>
> >> > and
>
> >> > #2 E = 0.5 m*N*v*v*(N-k), where N is very large and k is small, and v
> >> > is the incremental speed to the body with each individual application
> >> > of internal force;
>
> >> so
>
> >> E = 1/2mv^2 . N(N-k)
>
> >> What are N and k ??
>
> >> That's just saying the energy is a factor multiplied by the kinetic
> >> energy .. which is nonsense.
>
> >> > describe natural phenomena admirably, from the Doppler effect,
> >> > redshift, etc. to the energy from the sun, earth, nukes, tsunamis,
> >> > and
> >> > even the lighting of a match.
>
> >> Not really
>
> >> > Equation #1 is evident from nature, and rigorously from the null
> >> > results of the MMI experiment.
>
> >> If its addition of velocities, then it is refuted experimentally
>
> >> > Equation #2 is based upon generalisations of Newton's first and third
> >> > law of motion.
>
> >> > Thus:
> >> > Every body moves in a straight line, or remains at rest, unless
> >> > obliged otherwise by force.
> >> > Note: In this revised first law, the adjective "external" that
> >> > qualified the word "force" is dropped.
>
> >> > And:
> >> > To every action there is an equal reaction.
> >> > Note: Here in the revised third law, the additional adjective
> >> > "opposite" qualifying the word "reaction" is dropped.
>
> >> > These upset the shonky theories relating to Special/General
> >> > Relativity, and entropy, and will revolutionise physics.
>
> >> No .. they are just nonsense you have written down.  They don't
> >> 'upset' anything
>
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> >> > adda1234#bigpond.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > xxein:  You are obviously not qualified to determine the physic.
> > Don't pretend and get out of here now.
>
> who?

Excellent point. Apropos question. I so totally agree with ... err...
whoever.

Axiom: There are no new equations in Physics, Mathematics, or
Otherwise.

> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net ---

Enjo(y)...
--
Mahipal

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: I am groovy
Next: evidence points more to a massless neutrino than a tiny rest mass #597 Correcting Math