Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense - the basic mistake exposed!
Arindam Banerjee
I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.
http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
will not be based upon rocketry.
Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
correct formula linking mass with energy.
Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
Arindam Banerjee
Hampton Park, Australia
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"Please email to "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com>
. . .
"You can also write to me at my address, 2 Riley Place,
Hampton Park, Victoria 3976, Australia, or simply ring me
at (03) 9799 3032."
http://www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/pg000014.htm
[Reproduced for identification purposes.]
In article <1118905165.836361.289...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> posted:
>
> Get lost, shameless swine. . . .
Exposed - Arindam Banerjee's tactics of abuse
Archived post:
[ Subject: Re: Fw: Astrology is a Science
[ From: chriskrolc...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk)
[ Newsgroups: alt.astrology . . .
[ Message-ID: <c743abb.0308251714.3afca...@posting.google.com>
[ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.99.13.253
[ Date: 25 Aug 2003 18:14:14 -0700
adda1...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee)
wrote in message news:<890e65ea.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> chriskrolc...@hotmail.com (Chris Krolczyk) wrote in
> message news:<c743abb.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Just my point, you worthless lot's capable only of giving abuse (and
> that too, of a remarkably unoriginal quality) not reasoned argument.
Oh, please. Pot, Kettle, Black. As in:
news:<890e65ea.02013...@posting.google.com>
>True. Use your head, read my book, and then try to sort it out. I believe
>that my main problem is that I am a brown Hindu, and that the modern
>scientific establishment is composed of Eurocentric racists. Which is why,
>they are not even deigning to acknowledge the existence of my work.
followed up by
news:<890e65ea.0201...@posting.google.com>
>My, what mumbo-jumbo! Makes less sense than any witch-doctor in
>darkest Africa.
or howzabout
<890e65ea.0204112309.120ff...@posting.google.com>
>Why should I not? A Jew almost made it to Vice President, and they
>run all the key positions in govt., finance, academic, media,
>entertainment, publishing, etc., or allow their wannabes to do so. If
>you run foul of a Jew in USA, you are labelled a Nazi, and you have no
>chance at all for recognition or promotion, for then you become
>morally responsible for the deaths of 6 million Jews in WW2. This, by
>the way, has just happened to me in an interchange in the newsgroup
>rec.art.books. Some Jew named Zeleny called me a wog Nazi because he
>did not appreciate some of my views relating to US foreign policies.
>I was also described as a Nazi earlier when I said that Einstein could
>be wrong so far as his theory of relativity was concerned.
Nice change in tactics, Ari. First you accuse others of
racism in a discussion in which you brought up the subject
yourself. Then you post something quite racist yourself.
Then, in an unrelated post, you post something incredibly
antisemitic largely because you were feeling sorry for
yourself and were honked off because they didn't like
your "scientific theory" contradicting Einstein.
And somehow you see fit to lecture others on
"reasoned argument"? Don't make me laugh.
> And as I said, you are a proven gutless scumbag,
In your eyes, Ari. That's not much of a
recommendation now, is it?
> incapable of decency,
"Decency"? Heh.
From news:<890e65ea.02041...@posting.google.com>
>Thanks for your interest in me, and I appreciate being the object of
>so much attention, though I wish a lot of money came from it. I am
>most kindly disposed towards Jews - despite their negative attitude
>towards me, but that is understandable, for if my theories are right,
>their beloved Einstein will be shown wrong - and so I have suggested
>that they all leave the Middle East and get for themselves a Zionist
>state in Florida, where they should be much loved and respected by the
>USAns who worship their one true god.
Some "decency" there, huh?
Matt Giwer would be proud.
> content to make snide attacks from the safety of other newsgroups.
Like you did to Michael Zeleny on soc.culture.india in the third
post I referenced, eh?
Physician, heal thyself.
> Abuse is, thus, what you deserve.
Self-abuse is, as proven, what you post.
(Remainder of Ari's wankery deleted - why is it that kooks
always gravitate to Einstein's dead ass like flies when
everything else they rant about runs dry?)
-Chris Krolczyk
End of archived post
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
dlzc
Please stop using any technology based on modern physics, since you
think it is wrong.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:55888d96-0493-49fe...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
David A. Smith
===============================================
You are a fuckin' liar, Smiffy, YOU wrote that.
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in
> public
> life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down
> by
> Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
> ideas on the HTN have found favour with
> many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
Just Me
> Dear All,
>
> I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
> Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
>
> Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Hampton Park, Australia
In your monograph, you make the following statement . . .
"For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any
object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the
river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to
drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of –v, so that its net
velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0."
It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis
for your entire theory. You state that "the river is the Earth moving
with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of
reference." It is quite clear, however that the river is not the
"Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift". As the river
analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of
the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical
assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given
the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself,
or i.e. the flow of the river.
The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and
parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no
such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed
there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference. This fact
completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the
consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays.
The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference"
is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the
analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks,
and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether,
as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the
analogy.
The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with
respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with
respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water,
and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial
location outside the flow is irrelevant. It is an instant in time
relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on
the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the
ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a
clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that
position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by
the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light.
The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or
perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy
expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of
energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy
expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no
ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the
same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite
"clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or
constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the
quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not
reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity.
The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at
the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of
reference or it will not. There was no such new absolute frame of
reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was
only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute.
--
JM
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Didn't even Newton say that there is no absolute frame of reference
and that all inertial frames of reference are equally "absolute"?
hari....@indero.com
the subject line once spoke highly of jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. and
sought his help on a matter in india. Jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc.
almost wet his pants for the attention.
The short story, he soon came to realize as many real indians do that
jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. is a complete fraud in his self invented
web image. It soon started to unravel and jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc.
couldnot stop it.
When that was done, jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. turned on him like a
mad dog. Where once jay stevens,aka dr. jai etc. almost kissed his
feet, he turn to a campaigne of slander and libel that continues to this
day. It even came to include the real indian's wife.
He is not indian, he is an american and a citizen of that country all
his life.
He speaks no language of india but english and refuses a call from a
real indian least the fraud be instantly known.
His "dr." and indian sounding name are self given.
harmony
great accuracy. maha murkha arindam ko tab buddhi aayegi jub woh rajghat pe
matha tikega.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100103ZSGE0IkmD66A9o91zV8F407@B143V...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
I also posted articles on the same topic recently, but did
the IIT-fraud read them?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b428902$0$5315$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> i had recently posted that relativity theory has been re-validated with
> great accuracy. maha murkha arindam ko tab buddhi aayegi jub woh rajghat pe
> matha tikega.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Igor
> Dear All,
>
> I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
> Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
>
> Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Hampton Park, Australia
Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down
the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek
philosophers will be very pissed.
spudnik
_The Non-euclidean Revolution_, he interpreted an experiment
(in the literature?) of the human visual field,
as showing that it was not flat (or euclidean); but,
this seems to have been a mistake.
there is nothing wrong with hyperbolic geometry, but
it is just the fish-eye (or Fresnel) lens.
there is nothing wrong with special relativity, but
the general relativeity uses the totally unneeded formalism
of space-time, which is just a simple phase-space
(the "curvature" of that, is not wuite what it seems
to be .-)
> Be careful in getting rid of special relativity. You'll bring down
> the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek
> philosophers will be very pissed.- Hide quoted text -
thus:
I'm sure that, iff one applies himself,
he will see that there are particular or
generical reasons to not "not top-post;"
what ever are the supposed reasons, not
to not "not top-post," I have never seen them
over the years, because a)
I do not read "FAQs du nettiquette," and b)
no-one has ever actually tried to make the case
for it, despite "n" simple requests to do so;
of course, some take either the act
of top-posting, or the question as to, why, not,
as a provacation.
> Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave
> in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double
> slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the
> photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single
> path.
> > the point I have been making,
> > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that
> > they are working exclusively with matter (although
> > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space."
Inertial
"spudnik" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e61d464a-3186-451c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
STOP TOP-POSTING
[snip top-posted content un-read]
spudnik
as to why, not?
why don't you ask, why, so?
> STOP TOP-POSTING
thus:
there is nothing wrong with special relativity, but
the general relativeity *also* uses the unneeded formalism
of space-time, which is just a simple phase-space
(the "curvature" of that, is not quite what it seems
Arindam Banerjee
> Dear All,
>
> I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
> Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
>
> Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Hampton Park, Australia
Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper
showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
international scrutiny. Over years and years!
What next?
Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to
object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in
other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system? Do
we pay taxes to our governments so that our children are taught to
believe in pure lies, nonsense and the resulting incomprehensible
gobbledygook?
Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if
no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world,
I myself will give it a go! Too easy, though. I would much rather
spend my time with the HTN and IFE. Nevertheless, short cuts need not
be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. Hmm, going to a
court of law, sounds the right thing to do. Let a professional judge
decide on what is essentially a legal matter. In fact, the most
fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of
nature!.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
Arindam Banerjee
Well, the encouraging thing here is that only one infamous impostor
and liar, along with his sole moronic accomplice, attacks me - and
that too with totally irrelevant and silly attempts at character
assassination. Now, isn't this the best possible argument for the
validity of my objections to Einstein's wrong theories?
Dear Hari, if you go through my paper and agree with me, then please
advise best course regarding taking proper institutional procedures
including due legal processes to out the teachings of relativity from
all publicly funded instititutions. Of course, the relativists will
keep on screaming and protesting - but can they fight my paper (see
the above url) in a court of law, where, still, they have to rely on
hard facts and logic based upon English grammar?
Looking for support, and with best regards,
Arindam Banerjee.
Tom Roberts
> On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper
> showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> international scrutiny. Over years and years!
That's nonsense. Few physicists monitor these newsgroups, and fewer still
respond to obviously idiotic postings like yours.
Lack of response does NOT mean that no response is possible, it merely means
that nobody has bothered.
When you publish in a journal like the Physical Review, and survive criticism
there, then you have something. It's HIGHLY doubtful you can do that.
This thread consists merely of unsupported claims and insults. So I don't know
what your TECHNICAL claims actually are. I do know that Minkowski geometry (the
basis of SR) has been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry,
so your objections are OVERWHELMINGLY likely to be mistakes on YOUR part, and
not actual problems with relativity. That is certainly the case with all the
other people who post claims around here that "relativity is nonsense".
> Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to
> object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in
> other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system?
Hopeless. Even the Bible crowd has not succeeded very well in the U.S. court
system (though they have bulldozed the elementary education system -- courts
have rules of evidence, but elections to Boards of Education do not). Evolution
and relativity are two of the best-supported theories we have today; they are as
solidly established as atomic theory and basic mechanics. Relativity is more
subtle and counter-intuitive, and evolution contradicts the religious beliefs of
millions, which is why they come under attack by non-scientists -- such attacks
so far are completely worthless because they are promulgated by people who
simply do not understand the theories they are attempting to attack.
Tom Roberts
Dono.
PD
OK, let me tell you what this is like.
This is like claiming that you have found a cure for cancer. Then to
test whether your claim is correct, you walk into the lobby of a
medical insurance company and holler to everyone standing there, "I
have a cure for cancer! Now is your chance to prove that it's not!"
And if you are ignored in the lobby of an office building, you tell
yourself that you've given the world a chance to prove you wrong, and
they didn't, so you must be right, and could somebody please award you
some fame for having cured cancer now.
John Stafford
At this stage, the bright ideas claimed in
http://adda-enterprises.com/home.htm do not deserve a thorough critique.
The author might begin by reviewing his claims to fact. For example,
high power electrical lines do not have a 70% loss, but about 7%.
John Stafford
> On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper
> showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> international scrutiny. Over years and years!
Thank you for the picture-perfect example of hubris and illogic. I will
use it for a critical thinking course for children.
A. Banshee
>
> >
> > Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if
> > no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world,
> > spend my time with the HTN and IFE. =A0Nevertheless, short cuts need
> > not be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. =A0Hmm, going
> > to a court of law, sounds the right thing to do. =A0Let a professional
> > judge decide on what is essentially a legal matter. =A0In fact, the
> > most fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of
> > nature!.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee.
*Boing* Coo-Coo! Coo-Coo!!
Just Me
> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper . . .
> showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> international scrutiny. Over years and years!
That's the trouble with you and your paper, Banerjee, both are so full
of "self-respect" that there's room for the respect of no one else.
And the whole thing is based on one perfectly absurd error of
interpretation, as posted previously but here with amendments and
excisions . . .
In your monograph . . .
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
You make the following statement . . .
"For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any
relative to a position in flow (or no-flow). But let us go further.
More than that float should represent a mechanical or atomic clock
giving the "instant in time relative to a position in the hypothetical
flow", time as Newton understood it becomes irrelevant, being defined
now as an event given by the energy, the wave generated in the water
by the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light: "time" is now a
product of two things coincidentally in motion: waves and ether..
Given this view, the "clock" is not one of hands and a dial-face
powered by springs and gears, but a system of coordinates defined by
light waves moving in the flow of hypothetical ether (or no flow)--
depending upon the outcome of the experiment.
Given this view, the concept of Einstein's "space-time" begins to make
more than mathematical sense, alone. Now it is seen that "time" is a
kind of space; a dimension of space (as space is also a dimension of
time) which can only be so if space itself is seen as being not static
but in a state of flow--hence the "ether sea".
But why the demand for the ether to be in flow? Clearly, the
physicists who first conceived the theory understood something about
wave mechanics which made it essential. And what might that be but the
insistence that waves, in order to be manifest, must be a product of
two (or more than one) motion: there must be two things in motion to
make a wave. What you are seeing in a wave is the formation of an
action/reaction manifestion--fully in accord with Newton's Third Law
of Motion.
But what about the waters of a still pond, will you ask? No such thing
as a still pond. The pond itself is in motion of rotation with the
earth. The waves generated in its surface are a visible expression of
terrestrial motion. In like fashion, the atmosphere of the earth
which is said to "carry" sound waves is actually doing no such thing.
Rather, the motion of the terrestrial atmosphere in combination with a
motion of shock energy from some impulse together work to produce
waves of sound.
This is the very heart of the Theory of Relativity, which as Einstein
himself reconsidered it, in at least one lecture he gave . . .
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt
He puts forth the possibility that Relativity does not replace the
ether theory but reveals it for what it really is: gravity/inertia
acting both on bodies and energy in spacetime. Hence, the General
Theory.
--
JM
eric gisse
> On Jan 7, 2:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper . .
>> . showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
>> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
>> international scrutiny. Over years and years!
Personally I've always found this logic interesting, as there are two
complementary and usually simultaneous schools of thought in play:
a) "My paper has been ignored for years. That means scientists have no
rebuttal so I must be right!"
and b) "Scientists have been telling me for years that I am wrong. If I was
wrong they wouldn't waste so much time on me, so I must be right!"
[...]
Arindam Banerjee
How is this relevant to my article debunking the first postulate of
Einstein's SR?
Well, if you like those treacherous baboons jBm and co. do not
understand what I wrote, that is okay. I do not expect everyone to
understand this debunking, for one has to possess a high degree of
proficiency in the English language, and also some mathematics,
ability to read simple diagrams, etc.
Nevertheless, you do raise an interesting point, if by modern physics
you mean anything resulting from e=mcc stuff.
I have worked as a professional engineer for 30 years, in antennas,
radar, telecom, computers, etc. and in no area of useful activity did
involve this e=mcc nonsense. The technologies all resulted from the
theories of Newton and Maxwell.
The public mind is shaped by the atom bomb, and that is said to result
from e=mcc. Also, there is hope that we will get unlimited energy
from nuclear fusion, and we do have fission.
But, all these have nothing whatsoever to do with e=mcc, or in other
words, relativity. I have already shown how the atom bomb and in fact
every explosion can be intuitively shown by my new mathematical
formula linking mass and energy. I have derived this equation ten
years ago, published it in usenet, wrote a book "To the Stars!" based
upon it... And recently the theory has been validated by experiment,
in the US. Where it has been shown that the reaction from a rail gun
does not exist as an opposing force - it is applied orthogonally.
This experiment blasts the third law of Newton, and also the law of
conservation of energy, and makes it possible to have internal force
engines that can propel any craft to unlimited speeds, in outer space.
The sooner we ditch the relativity nonsense, the better.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Adda Enterprises
http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInit/MMint.htm
Arindam Banerjee
Dear Just Me,
Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
so.
Cheers,
Arindam
AB: Yes, you have quoted me correctly. If you stick a float in the
river bed, then it is stuck on the unmoving river bank effectively.
> It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis
> for your entire theory.
AB: Okay, let us see what you have got.
You state that "the river is the Earth moving
> with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of
> reference."
AB: Again, you are quoting me correctly.
It is quite clear, however that the river is not the
> "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift".
AB: Here I disagree. The river is the Earth, and the river bank is the
unmoving Ether. The Earth is drifting through the ether, just as the
river is drifting by the bank and the float too. So much is clear
from the text book itself. If you read the whole article, there
should be no doubt about this point. To make my point clear -
according to the ether theory, ether is a SOLID which is very fine,
and permeating all of space. Ether thus never moves. It cannot
drift, by definition. All bodies just go through the ether. So the
ether as a solid stays put, while all bodies go through it. I am not
saying anything new here. What I am saying is simply 19th century
physics, as mentioned in the textbook I have quoted.
As the river
> analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of
> the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical
> assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given
> the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself,
> or i.e. the flow of the river.
AB: Yes there is an ether sea as you put it, but if you read the text
a bit more carefully you will find that the ether is not fluid but a
SOLID by definition. That is, each part of the ether has a fixed
dimensional relationship with other parts, like any solid. So the
flow is *not* of ether, but of bodies in space that move in ether -
suns, planets, our own selves...
> The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and
> parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no
> such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed
> there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference.
AB: The experiment simply proved that the velocity of light changed
with the velocity of the emitter of light. In short, it proved that
the first postulate of Einstein is completely wrong. And with that
proved wrong, the whole structure of relativity and modern physics
crashes to the ground. Why?
***** If the Earth moves, then what is happening that light travels a
greater or longer distance, actually, than what is the measured
distance. ***** This is a most remarkable and original find, to which
I humbly take credit.
Just think about it. You measure out say a meter. Flash a light at
one end. By the time this light reaches the other end, that end has
moved a little bit since the Earth has moved over that period, so the
distance is not one meter, but more or less, save at just one angle.
So the light will have to travel a bit more distance, or less. I have
made this point clearly in http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
But since the speed of light also changes proportionately, that is, it
moves faster when it has to travel a longer distance, and slower when
it has to travel a shorter distance (like every other object that is
thrown from any moving platform) we simply have to get the null
results. We can only create a hoo-haa about relativity when we totally
ignore the fundamental point I have made here. Thus for the first
postulate to be valid, the Earth must be still with respect to the
solid ether - like, the floats anchored to the river bed, in the
analogy. However, no one seriously thinks that the Aristotlean model
is valid any more - that is, no one seriously holds that the Earth is
still and all else is moving...
So if we allow the Earth is moving, then light has to travel more or
less distances than what is measured out. Since we have nulls, the
only way we can have nulls is by having the speed of light to vary
with the speed of the emitter. In other words, the first postulate of
Einstein's SR is totally wrong, and e=mcc is bogus.
Only when the very important above fact is internalised by all who are
worthy and well-meaning, is there any point in my publishing my book
"Principles of Motion" which extends the ideas first presented in my
book "To the Stars!" I do hope good people will read it very
carefully, and think even more carefully, on this most important
point.
This fact
> completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the
> consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays.
AB: As I said, the null result shows nothing but the fact that the
light actually changes speed with respect to the emitter. You are
restating the original position, by ignoring what I wrote, and
misinterpreting the meaning of ether as it existed in the 19th
century. To repeat, ether is a solid. It cannot flow.
> The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference"
> is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the
> analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks,
> and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether,
> as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the
> analogy.
AB: Again, you are saying that ether flows, but it does not. Objects
flow through ether - by definition ether is a solid and all parts of
this ether always bear a constant spatial relationship with each
other, this being the fundamental characteristic of a solid. So, the
ether is the absolute reference, as it is unmoving.
However, ether or no ether, if the Earth moves, then the light has to
travel a greater or lesser (and in one angle, the same) distance as
the measured out distance. Just like you throw a ball in a moving
train. To the people in the train, it does not matter which way the
train is moving. But to an outside on the non-moving track, the ball
always travels a greater or lesser distance, at greater or lesser
speeds.
> The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with
> respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with
> respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water,
> and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial
> location outside the flow is irrelevant.
AB: Of course, if you persist in considering ether to be a flowing
thing and not a solid, there is no further argument! All I want to
say is that according to the ether theory ether is a solid that fills
the entire universe. All the electromagnetic waves use this ether for
propagation - all the masses flow through this medium. Because ether
is infinitely fine, this can happen.
Your point above is not clear to me. Except that you do not seem to
like the analogy. That is very well. but so long as you do not
dispute that light has to travel greater or lesser distances when the
Earth is moving, you cannot but agree with me in that the first
postulate is wrong, and as wrong as can be.
It is an instant in time
> relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on
> the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the
> ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a
> clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that
> position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by
> the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light.
AB: You have to be a lot more detailed, if you want to put up
countering ideas. So far you have not even addressed my point, that
is, that light *has* to travel greater or lesser distances when the
Earth is moving.
>
> The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or
> perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy
> expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of
> energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy
> expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no
> ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the
> same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite
> "clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or
> constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the
> quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not
> reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity.
AB: At this stage, energy is irrelevant. What I am saying is that if
the Earth moves, the light has to travel a greater or lesser distance
with respect to the fixed measured out distance.
>
> The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at
> the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of
> reference or it will not. There was no such new absolute frame of
> reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was
> only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute.
AB: MMI experiment only proved that the velocity of light is *not*
constant, and that it changes with the speed of the emitter. This it
did by ignoring the well-accepted fact that the Earth, it moves.
Cheers,
Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, the Galileo of our time!
> --
> JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Arindam Banerjee
Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
so.
**By the way, I am reposting this using Outlook Express for it looks like
the post I made in Google you have not seen yet, and it has not come on
Outlook Express.**
Cheers,
Arindam
> > Dear All,
> >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
> In your monograph, you make the following statement . . .
> "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
> and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference. Any
> object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the
> river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to
> drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of �v, so that its net
> velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0."
AB: Yes, you have quoted me correctly. If you stick a float in the
river bed, then it is stuck on the unmoving river bank effectively.
> It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis
> for your entire theory.
AB: Okay, let us see what you have got.
You state that "the river is the Earth moving
> with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of
> reference."
AB: Again, you are quoting me correctly.
It is quite clear, however that the river is not the
> "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift".
AB: Here I disagree. The river is the Earth, and the river bank is the
unmoving Ether. The Earth is drifting through the ether, just as the
river is drifting by the bank and the float too. So much is clear
from the text book itself. If you read the whole article, there
should be no doubt about this point. To make my point clear -
according to the ether theory, ether is a SOLID which is very fine,
and permeating all of space. Ether thus never moves. It cannot
drift, by definition. All bodies just go through the ether. So the
ether as a solid stays put, while all bodies go through it. I am not
saying anything new here. What I am saying is simply 19th century
physics, as mentioned in the textbook I have quoted.
As the river
> analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of
> the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical
> assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given
> the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself,
> or i.e. the flow of the river.
AB: Yes there is an ether sea as you put it, but if you read the text
a bit more carefully you will find that the ether is not fluid but a
SOLID by definition. That is, each part of the ether has a fixed
dimensional relationship with other parts, like any solid. So the
flow is *not* of ether, but of bodies in space that move in ether -
suns, planets, our own selves...
> The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and
> parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no
> such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed
> there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference.
This fact
> completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the
> consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays.
AB: As I said, the null result shows nothing but the fact that the
light actually changes speed with respect to the emitter. You are
restating the original position, by ignoring what I wrote, and
misinterpreting the meaning of ether as it existed in the 19th
century. To repeat, ether is a solid. It cannot flow.
> The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference"
> is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the
> analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks,
> and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether,
> as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the
> analogy.
AB: Again, you are saying that ether flows, but it does not. Objects
flow through ether - by definition ether is a solid and all parts of
this ether always bear a constant spatial relationship with each
other, this being the fundamental characteristic of a solid. So, the
ether is the absolute reference, as it is unmoving.
However, ether or no ether, if the Earth moves, then the light has to
travel a greater or lesser (and in one angle, the same) distance as
the measured out distance. Just like you throw a ball in a moving
train. To the people in the train, it does not matter which way the
train is moving. But to an outside on the non-moving track, the ball
always travels a greater or lesser distance, at greater or lesser
speeds.
> The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with
> respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with
> respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water,
> and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial
> location outside the flow is irrelevant.
AB: Of course, if you persist in considering ether to be a flowing
thing and not a solid, there is no further argument! All I want to
say is that according to the ether theory ether is a solid that fills
the entire universe. All the electromagnetic waves use this ether for
propagation - all the masses flow through this medium. Because ether
is infinitely fine, this can happen.
Your point above is not clear to me. Except that you do not seem to
like the analogy. That is very well. but so long as you do not
dispute that light has to travel greater or lesser distances when the
Earth is moving, you cannot but agree with me in that the first
postulate is wrong, and as wrong as can be.
It is an instant in time
> relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on
Arindam Banerjee
"Just Me" <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46eac66b-fcbf-49cd...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 2:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper . . .
> showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> international scrutiny. Over years and years!
That's the trouble with you and your paper, Banerjee, both are so full
of "self-respect" that there's room for the respect of no one else.
AB: Dear Just Me, tell me how much room for respect you have for those who
attack Israel? I hold that the einsteinians are the biggest hindrances to
science, technology and the good life - so why should I have any more
respect for them than you show for those who attack Israel and Jews?
And the whole thing is based on one perfectly absurd error of
interpretation, as posted previously but here with amendments and
excisions . . .
AB: No, not at all. I have pointed out your own errors in another article.
With the kind of scientific and technical background that I have acquired
over the last 40 years of study and service, I believe any thinking person
will side with me, provided he is not biased due to financial or other
reasons. Point is, Just Me, what chance have I of getting a decent court of
law to give a ruling declaring the theories of relativity to be utter
bullshit? I think, it is a very good one, as they cannot or should not go
by character assassination, hand-waving, appeals to institutional authority
(well, this is the biggest support of the einsteinians and we have to see
how much the mere statement-type words of hawking weigh with legality),
numerous so-called authorities etc. but by simple English grammar, facts and
logic. Hmm, will be an interesting court case, will any one in the legal
profession take it up? The pickings will be great, for the textbooks will
have to be rewritten! Hmm, and with the cut I get from copyright etc. I
should make my HTN and IFE... Anyway, never mind, within 2-3 years I
believe I will make a working model of the IFE and then the whole thing will
*have* to crash like any insecure house of cards. In the meantime, make hay
while you can, o einsteinians! There are still so many fools who will
*believe* you and more importantly lavishly fund your absurd ventures!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
- snip-
Dono.
> Anyway, never mind, within 2-3 years I
> believe I will make a working model of the IFE and then the whole thing will
> *have* to crash like any insecure house of cards.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e94/beckerjmb/homeless-box.jpg
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:yac2n.454$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
AB: True, the actual velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether is not
relevant at all, and this is evident from the maths. It could be anything,
and this velocity cannot be measured by this experiment (the original stated
aim for it). For not only is the Earth moving in ether, the solar system,
the galaxies, etc. are all moving in ether. So to get the absolute
velocity, is well-nigh impossible with modern or at any rate 19th century
methods. That they tried to do that, shows how they neglected to take all
the factors that needed to be taken - in this simple case, to repeat, that
the Earth's movement causes fluctuations in the actual lengths actually
travelled by the light with respect to the measured lengths.
So if you throw a ball in a closed train, then things will looks the same no
matter what the velocity of the train, *within the train*. A diffenent
matter, to the onlooker on the tracks! The onlooker on the tracks sees the
ball move greater distances with greater speed, and lesser distances with
lesser speeds; but the time of travel is the same always!
Just Me
> Dear Just Me,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
> will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
> so.
>
> **By the way, I am reposting this using Outlook Express for it looks like
> the post I made in Google you have not seen yet, and it has not come on
> Outlook Express.**
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam
Sorry for the delay--and the ornery response to yours. ;-)
In view of your comments and the counter arguments proffered, it has
been necessary for me to get back to the books and do my homework. We
have come to a disagreement over exactly what would have been the
understanding of 19th century physics as to the nature of the alleged
"ether" and what was meant by the terminology of "ether drift". As it
happens, there turns out to be, at Gutenberg, a paper that could not
be more spot on to the subject. It's from a lecture entitled as
follows . . .
ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY :An Address delivered on May 5th,
1920, in the University of Leyden by none other than Albert Einstein,
himself. Upon a first cursory scanning of the paper, it would appear
that you are not in opposition to Einstein's understanding of the
ether theory, that it would be seen, as you've insisted, for a
"solid". Here is the link to that paper . . .
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt
I am going to give it a thorough reading over the next few days, in
order that I might better know what I've supposed myself to be talking
about.
Ciao!
Here is some of the text from that lecture, in which Einstein renders
the understanding of his contemporaries as to how the ether must be a
'solid' and yet also in a state of drift . . .
When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching
similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of
light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether
hypothesis found fresh support. It appeared beyond question that
light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert
medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary
consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that
this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body,
because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in
a solid. Thus the physicists were bound to arrive at the theory
of the "quasi-rigid" luminiferous ether, the parts of which can
carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small
movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves.
This theory--also called the theory of the stationary luminiferous
ether--moreover found a strong support in an experiment which is
also of fundamental importance in the special theory of relativity,
the experiment of Fizeau, from which one was obliged to infer
that the luminiferous ether does not take part in the movements of
bodies. The phenomenon of aberration also favoured the theory of
the quasi-rigid ether.
< . . . >
This dualism still confronts us in unextenuated form in the theory
of Hertz, where matter appears not only as the bearer of velocities,
kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but also as the bearer of
electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also occur _in vacuo_--i.e.
in free ether--the ether also appears as bearer of electromagnetic
fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its functions from
ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter
and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether
has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole of space.
There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's ether and
ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether).
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt
--
JM http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://bobbisoxsnatchers.blogspot.com
Darwin123
> Dear Just Me,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
> will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
> so.
>
> **By the way, I am reposting this using Outlook Express for it looks like
> the post I made in Google you have not seen yet, and it has not come on
> Outlook Express.**
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam
>
> On Jan 4, 6:33 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > Dear All,
> > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in
> > > public
> according to the ether theory, ether is a SOLID which is very fine,
> and permeating all of space.
century model of the ether. Given that you have rediscovered it, maybe
you could answer some questions which were still unresolved in 1900.
1) Since the ether is a solid, it must have longitudinal modes of
vibration. So light in a vacuum should have a longitudinal
polarization, in addition to the transverse polarizations that we know
about. Yet, longitudinal vibrations have never been found. Why?
2) Every vibrational wave we know about travels at a fixed speed
relative to the center of mass of the medium it travels in. Yet you
tell us that light picks up a component of velocity from it source.
How can a vibrational wave in the ether pick up a velocity from its
source?
3) The ether transmits electromagnetic waves. Thus, it must also
transmit electric and magnetic fields under near field conditions. For
example, it must transmit static magnetic fields (read bar magnet) and
static electric fields (read charged body). How does the ether
transmit both electric and magnetic field?
4) Using the ether, explain the force laws of the electromagnetic
field. As a reminder, explain:
F=q(E+vxB)
where F is the force, q is the electric charge, E is the electric
field, and B is the magnetic field.
F, E, B and v are three dimensional vectors BTW, q is a scalar.
Try to explain these these facts about the electromagnetic field
using your ether model.
Just Me
> ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY :An Address delivered on May 5th,
> 1920, in the University of Leyden by none other than Albert Einstein,
> himself. Upon a first cursory scanning of the paper, it would appear
> that you are not in opposition to Einstein's understanding of the
> ether theory, that it would be seen, as you've insisted, for a
> "solid". Here is the link to that paper . . .
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt
>
> I am going to give it a thorough reading over the next few days, in
> order that I might better know what I've supposed myself to be talking
> about.
Here is the final paragraph of that lecture, in which, once again it
would appear that there is no argument between Mr. Banerjee and Dr.
Einstein, at least so far as any understanding of the ether goes . . .
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory
of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space
there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no
possibility
of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and
clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it.
harmony
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:_Cc2n.459$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Cleaning up the post a bit
>
> [BLANK SPACE]
I see that Arindam's post is as devoid of any matter as is his character of honesty.
Now please a previous post about pushpak vimaan:
PUSHPAK VIMAAN - BHARAT'S ANCIENT SPACECRAFT
Forwarded message from durgashakti1...@yahoo.com
[ Subject: pushpak vimaana
[ From: durgashakti1...@yahoo.com
[ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005
Rense.com
Ancient Indian Spacecraft
And Aircraft Technology
By The Hindu Staff Reporter
1-6-5
Tirupati -'India had a treasure trove of hitech warfare
technology that even the 'mighty West' does not possess.
The Brahmastra and Vimaan used in the pre-Mahabharat
period are nothing but the earlier versions of today's
nuclear weapons and spacecraft.'
It is this feeling that one would get after listening to
a lecture on 'High Technology in Ancient Sanskrit
Literature' by Mr. C. S. R. Prabhu, senior scientist,
NIC, Hyderabad, on Thursday as part of the three- day
Indo-Nepal Sanskrit Conference, currently underway at the
Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha here.
Mr. Prabhu, quoting extensively from ancient texts,
stressed that the pre-Mahabharat period was an age of
high technology, which was ignored in the Medieval period
due to reasons not known.
He quoted from the texts of a great scholar, Subbaraya
Sastry, who, in a state of yogic trance, is said to have
orally dictated the spacecraft technology in a period
somewhere between 1875 and 1919, which was recorded by
his disciples. The text, a copy of which is still in
Nepal's Royal Library, contained technical details on
assembling, fabricating and erecting a spacecraft, the
metals, semi-conductors, advanced alloys used and other
minute aeronautical information. Though quite difficult
to be believed on the face of it, the fact that this
technology did not exist anywhere in the world - not even
in America and Europe - in the mentioned period, makes it
hard for one to disbelieve.
Artwork by James Neff
The technical information given in Sastry's texts was as
minute, precise and clear, as if it were a 'Make your own
spacecraft' or a 'Spacecraft technology in 30 days'
except for the Sanskrit language used, which was very
much archaic and obsolete, Mr. Prabhu said. On a tip on
making an alloy, the text said 'Krishnaseesam Chanjanikam
Vajrathundam samamsathaha' from which the real meaning of
'Vajrathundam' (used in that context), could not be found
in any contemporary Sanskrit dictionary. ''After a great
amount of interaction with ayurvedic specialists and
Swamijis with intuitive interpretations, it turned out to
be the cactus plant,'' he said.
To further strengthen his claim, he said there were wall
paintings in some forts in Rajasthan depicting the use of
rockets in Mughal warfare and even by Tipu Sultan of
Mysore. Another interesting fact he gave was that the
spacecraft could become invisible on its own. The lead
alloy (Thamogarbha loha) used in making the body of the
spacecraft would absorb light around it in a photo
chemical reaction that would make it disappear.
On testing the Krishna seesa metal mentioned in the
formula in the laboratory of Birla Institute of Science,
Hyderabad, Mr. Prabhu found the metal absorbing 78 per
cent of laser light, which means, any other light could
be easily absorbed, giving ample proof that there existed
a technology to make things invisible. Also the use of an
alloy of copper, zinc and lead made the spacecraft's body
resist corrosion by 1000 times over that of the current
levels. Using Ararakamra material for the axle and wheels
had made it possible for taking 'U' turns and serpentine
movements.
An astonishing fact is that the Ararakamra metal was an
alloy of copper, zinc, lead and iron, the combination of
which is impossible, according to modern metallurgy.
Technically, the ''Young's modulus'' of this metal is
said to be higher than that of steel, making it stronger.
As the spacecraft had to be capable of resisting high
temperature, on re-entering our atmosphere from the outer
space, its body was made with a metal called 'Raja Loha'.
Its special feature was that apart from resisting heat,
it converted light from lightnings into energy. To
crosscheck all these details, there were no furnaces
available in Hyderabad to melt metals at a high
temperature of 2500 degrees celcius, Mr. Prabhu lamented.
Another hitch came into his research in the form of the
'energy' used. 'Though the texts explained that the
spacecraft was propelled by 'Sourasakthi', modern solar
technology does not generate so much power to drag a
rocket', he pointed out. Later he found out to his
bewilderment that it was a kind of 'nuclear power' that
was used in those days. 'The solar power, when coupled
with gamma rays produced nuclear energy that had the
power to propel a rocket', Mr. Prabhu observed.
He even spoke on 'Tripura Vimaan' that was used to travel
in space, water and on land, by using the metal 'Trinetra
loha'. Mr. Prabhu said he had submitted the model and
some more information on the 'super metal' to the Indian
Metal Society Conference and further claimed that the
advisor to the government on scientific affairs Dr. A. P.
J. Abdul Kalam too had asked him to bring the design of
the plane.
A committee which was appointed by Indian Institute of
Science to investigate into it, declared Sastry's texts
as 'fraud', but Mr. Prabhu reasons that the descriptions
mentioned in the ancient texts were perhaps too advanced
to believe, making the committee to hastily come to the
conclusion. He wanted a national level effort to prove
that the so called 'myths' were in fact, scientific
formulae on advanced technology. He said he had proposed
a project called 'Bharadwaja Institute of Vedic Science
and Technology', the objective of which was to derive,
decipher and reproduce advanced methodologies and
processes from Vedic and post-Vedic Sanskrit texts, for
which he sought government's support.
More Reading On This Subject -
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_7.htm
http://ebusiness.ada.gov.in/library/library/VymanikaShastra1.htm
End of forwarded message from durgashakti1...@yahoo.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
"A king, though endowed with little prowess,
starting on an expedition at the proper time, in
view of the good positions of the planets, achieves
greatness that is eulogised in the scriptures."
- Brhat Samhita, 104.60
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
spudnik
to take Einstien's 1920 comprehension of aether,
to be the end-all & be-all?
I really have a problem with the analogy
of "the earthen riverbank & the water," since
they are taken as analogous to their opposites; eh?
Surfer
wrote:
It is interesting though, that in GR it can sometimes be useful to
model space as a substance in motion. Eg.
The river model of black holes
Am.J.Phys.76:519-532,2008
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
".......In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a
flat background, while objects move through the river according to the
rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of
space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity,
hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the
river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with
it....."
Conversely, after supposing that space could be a substance in motion,
it is possible to derive basic features of GR. Eg.
Deriving the General Relativity Formalism: Understanding its Successes
and Failures
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611002
".....From the generalised Dirac equation we show that the spacetime
formalism is derivable, but as merely a mathematical construct whose
geodesics arise from the trajectories of quantum wavepackets in the
3-space......"
There is a difference in that:
".....the metric of this spacetime is shown not to satisfy the
Hilbert-Einstein equations, except in the special case of the
Schwarzschild metric....."
But this difference is useful in that it allows the new theory to make
the same predictions as GR for situations for which GR is currently
accepted as correct, but to make better predictions for situations
where GR is currently being questioned.
Eg the new theory can:
1) Model the rotation rates of spiral galaxies without the use of dark
matter.
2) Model the expansion of the universe without the use of dark energy.
Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigm
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140
It can also resolve,
A Bitter Pill: The Primordial Lithium Problem Worsens
Richard H. Cyburt, Brian D. Fields, Keith A. Olive
JCAP 0811:012,2008
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2818
as described here,
Dynamical 3-Space Predicts Hotter Early Universe: Resolves CMB-BBN Li7
and He4 Abundance Anomalies
Reginald T. Cahill
Progress in Physics, vol 1, 67-71, 2010.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0960
Just Me
> It is interesting though, that in GR it can sometimes be useful to
> model space as a substance in motion. Eg.
>
> The river model of black holes
> Am.J.Phys.76:519-532,2008http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
>
> ".......In the river model, space itself flows like a river through a
> flat background, while objects move through the river according to the
> rules of special relativity. In a spherical black hole, the river of
> space falls into the black hole at the Newtonian escape velocity,
> hitting the speed of light at the horizon. Inside the horizon, the
> river flows inward faster than light, carrying everything with
> it....."
>
> Conversely, after supposing that space could be a substance in motion,
> it is possible to derive basic features of GR. Eg.
>
> Deriving the General Relativity Formalism: Understanding its Successes
> and Failureshttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611002
>
> ".....From the generalised Dirac equation we show that the spacetime
> formalism is derivable, but as merely a mathematical construct whose
> geodesics arise from the trajectories of quantum wavepackets in the
> 3-space......"
>
> There is a difference in that:
>
> ".....the metric of this spacetime is shown not to satisfy the
> Hilbert-Einstein equations, except in the special case of the
> Schwarzschild metric....."
>
> But this difference is useful in that it allows the new theory to make
> the same predictions as GR for situations for which GR is currently
> accepted as correct, but to make better predictions for situations
> where GR is currently being questioned.
>
> Eg the new theory can:
>
> 1) Model the rotation rates of spiral galaxies without the use of dark
> matter.
> 2) Model the expansion of the universe without the use of dark energy.
>
> Unravelling the Dark Matter - Dark Energy Paradigmhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4140
>
> It can also resolve,
> A Bitter Pill: The Primordial Lithium Problem Worsens
> Richard H. Cyburt, Brian D. Fields, Keith A. Olive
> JCAP 0811:012,2008http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2818
>
> as described here,
> Dynamical 3-Space Predicts Hotter Early Universe: Resolves CMB-BBN Li7
> and He4 Abundance Anomalies
> Reginald T. Cahill
> Progress in Physics, vol 1, 67-71, 2010.http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0960
Hm! Well, here's a small part of what I had to say in reply before
some bad key stroke or who knows what, swooped down and gobbled half
my text.
But note how in speaking of the ether as having a "definitely assigned
velocity throughout the whole of space," Einstein thus determines by
use of the term "velocity" that the ethereal 'motion' of deformation
thus described would be by nature, anisotropic. Does this mean that
gravity (or "gravitational waves") would be 'radiated' as it were,
perpendicular to the path of any orbiting body? And by virtue of that
then, would the result of the anisotropy be the cause and creation of
the orbit itself, as it reacted back upon the moving body?
This immediately brings to mind the earlier observations Einstein
makes regarding transverse waves and polarization--and this is where
he states that because light waves are transverse, the ether must
therefore be a "solid" since, as he states, transverse waves cannot be
produced in a fluid. He states this as follows . . .
"It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light
is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the
nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a
fluid, but only in a solid."
As I am not a physicist, I have no idea what that means. When I look
at breakers coming ashore at the seaside, I see what I take to be a
transverse wave -- what am I missing? What am I seeing instead?
But now look again at Einstein's stated reason as to why
theoretically, no motion may be attributed to the ether . . .
> > this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
> >quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> >which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
> >applied to it.
This is to make reference, once again to the dichotomy he sets up as
the main body of his argument, where he shows the error in treating
ether as though it were anything at all like "ponderable matter". And
why? Because "it may not be thought of as consisting of parts which
may be tracked through time." At first flash, this may seem an
objection on purely instrumental grounds, founded in the theoretical
demand that the ether may not be construed as consisting of parts;
pieces, portions, particles, protons that might by their character be
measurable and thereby observable as being "tracked" and by that seen
to be in motion. But a "motion of deformation" is likewise a motion of
transformation, where the velocity of great ponderable masses is
converted in the ether to gravity, such that not motion, as such, but
a potential for acceleration, a gravitational potential is imparted to
the ether that waits for any ponderable body to come into that area or
plane of the ether.
It is not so much that Einstein has here determined a dynamical ether
as absolutely impossible, but simply impossible of detection *as
motion*--which pertains only to ponderable bodies, even so tiny as the
hypothetical photons of light. But once again to the aforesaid
'dichotomy' he so brilliantly sets up through the course of his
argument, between the nature of matter, and that of the hypothetical
ether. And this is of course the most intriguing aspect of the
lecture, where in the setting up of the duality between these two
natures, of matter and ether, of matter he says . . .
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe
presents two realities which are completely separated from each other
conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether
and electromagnetic field, or--as they might also be called--space
and matter."
He actually states them as interchangeable terms, where "gravitational
ether" is one and the same with "space". In the same way, matter is
equivalent to "electromagnetic field".
Einstein's cosmology might enter in at this point, to shed further
light on these mysteries as he, most strangely, speaks of a universe
that is "unbounded" and yet "finite". We have unbounded space (by
virtue of its being infinitesimally deformable) and a finite quantity
of matter (by virtue of the First Law of Thermodynamics?) But all this
is dealt with in the second lecture which appears with the first in
that ebook from Gutenberg . . .
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/slrtv10.txt
Here is how he introduces the matter, a bit further down in his
lecture, GEOMETRY AND EXPERIENCE: An expanded form of an Address to
the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin on January 27th, 1921 . . .
"Can we picture to ourselves a three-dimensional universe which is
finite, yet unbounded?
The usual answer to this question is "No," but that is not the right
answer. The purpose of the following remarks is to show that the
answer should be "Yes." I want to show that without any extraordinary
difficulty we can illustrate the theory of a finite universe by
means of a mental image to which, with some practice, we shall soon
grow accustomed."
--
JM http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
Just Me
But if I don't attempt to recover it now from memory, I'll never get
it back--and I was on my way to bed. Dammit!
Note first the conclusion Einstein arrives upon at the end of his
lecture . . .
"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Earlier on, he presents the view of Hertz, which would impart motion
to the ether . . .
"In the theory of Hertz, [ . . . ] matter appears not only as the
bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but
also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also
occur _in vacuo_--i.e.in free ether--the ether also appears as bearer
of electromagnetic fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its
functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the
motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so
that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole
of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's ether and
ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether)."
Einstein then begins to show why a fundamental difference must be
observed between the two. And from his reasoning, brilliant as ever,
it would seem that certain inferences not specifically stated may be
drawn further from it. Take e.g. this statement concerning the Hertz
conception of the ether . . .
"Within matter it takes part in the motion of matter and in empty
space it has everywhere a velocity; so that the ether has a definitely
assigned velocity throughout the whole of space."
In discussions on the Michelson/Morley experiments, one reads of how
there were some who chose to think of the ether as being "carried
along" by bodies in motion, insofar as the ether was conceived to be
of such subtle nature that it would permeate all the bodies of space.
It would in this way be conceived, in Einstein's terms, as "taking
part in the motion of matter," the velocity of the body being imparted
to the ether within it. Others on the contrary saw the ether as
decidedly stationery and 'solid', such that bodies would be moving
through it, as a ghost might pass through the matter of a solid door.
But the considerations raised by Einstein lend light to another view,
where there is no "carrying along" of the ether but a physical
transformation taking place, where motion from ponderable bodies going
ghost-like through the ether has the effect of deforming the ether --
so that it is only in this way that the ether "takes part in the
motion of matter" -- transversely in reaction, as a ship leaves a wake
in the sea. And this transformation of deformation occurs to the ether
that is both outside and inside the ponderable body--there is your
"action at a distance" as it extends in its effect of deformation
throughout the entire unitary 'body' of the ether through all space.
Because the ether is unitary and not composed of parts, there is no
way that it can be "carried along" by the ether; no way it can be
perceived as being in motion, except that the motion be solely one of
"deformation" to the fabric of spacetime, which fabric is the ether.
Einstein points out, very clearly that except there be something in
space to be deformed, there can be no gravity, nor any medium through
which light waves may pass, nothing in which an electromagnetic field
might be expressed --not according to the findings of General
Relativity . . .
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as
consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of
motion may not be applied to it."
This is the man who introduced the photon talking, and saying, in
effect, photon or no photon, so long as light is all the more
empirically observed as having the properties of a wave, you can't
have those observations without a medium for them to be taking place
in. And we have the observations.
But exactly what is being imparted to the ether by a moving body--what
is being transformed? Velocity in a ponderable body is being imparted
to the ether in form of a potential of acceleration -- gravity. So,
will this mean that as action meets reaction, the very gravity created
acts upon the body whose velocity through the ether brought it into
being? If so, then its further course through the ether is in this way
determined, as it proceeds along the path of deformation, laboring on
under force of its own gravitational effect in whatever orbit has thus
been set for it.
This has been a poor substitute for the original text. Not that it's
anything so awful as Lawrence of Arabia leaving the completed
manuscript for the Seven Pillars of Wisdom on a London bus, but at
least I get a sense of how he must have felt, looking at the necessity
to write the whole damned thing all over again. Jesus!
--
JM http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
mpc755
More important than the wake is the ship's bow wave.
A moving particle or object has an associated aether displacement
wave.
> And this transformation of deformation occurs to the ether
> that is both outside and inside the ponderable body
Correct. The deformation of the ether is the shape and state of the
aether displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced
and pushes back, both outside and inside the ponderable body. This
pushing back is the aether pressure the aether displaced by the matter
exerts back towards and throughout the matter. The aether pressure
associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
GSS
....
> ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY :An Address delivered on May 5th,
> 1920, in the University of Leyden by none other than Albert Einstein,
> himself.
>
>
> "When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching
> similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of
> light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether
> hypothesis found fresh support. It appeared beyond question that
> light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert
> consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that
> this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body,
> because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in
> of the "quasi-rigid" luminiferous ether, the parts of which can
> carry out no movements relatively to one another except the small
> movements of deformation which correspond to light-waves."
>
which disturbances or 'deformations' can propagate as 'strain waves'
or 'strain wave packets'. In this viewpoint, ether is not a fluid
medium since transverse waves cannot be sustained in a fluid.
Unfortunately all discussions of this ether as an 'elastic solid
continuum' have so far been only qualitative and in view of the
'scientific apartheid' status associated with the notion of ether, no
detailed quantitative analysis of this 'elastic continuum' has been
carried out by anybody. I have researched on this issue in great
detail and recently compiled all of my research work in a book titled,
"Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields". You may kindly refer to the
chapters of your interest at the following website.
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
GSS
...
> Note first the conclusion Einstein arrives upon at the end of his
> lecture . . .
>
> "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
> be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
> Earlier on, he presents the view of Hertz, which would impart motion
> to the ether . . .
>
> "In the theory of Hertz, [ . . . ] matter appears not only as the
> bearer of velocities, kinetic energy, and mechanical pressures, but
> also as the bearer of electromagnetic fields. Since such fields also
> occur _in vacuo_--i.e.in free ether--the ether also appears as bearer
> of electromagnetic fields. The ether appears indistinguishable in its
> functions from ordinary matter. Within matter it takes part in the
> motion of matter and in empty space it has everywhere a velocity; so
> that the ether has a definitely assigned velocity throughout the whole
> of space. There is no fundamental difference between Hertz's ether and
> ponderable matter (which in part subsists in the ether)."
>
........
.....
> --
> JMhttp://doo-dads.blogspot.com
mpc755
It sounds like 'we' are all saying the same thing in general. Can we
agree on the following:
Aether is displaced by matter.
mpc755
The liquid vs. solid argument due to the propagation of transverse
waves is a red herring. There is no difference between aether
consisting of aether particles, quanta of aether, (liquid aether) and
aether as a singleton (solid). Waves travel a certain way in a solid
because the solid acts as a singleton. Waves travel a certain way in a
liquid because the liquid consists of particles in the aether.
If the aether consists of particles, the particles are the aether.
Either way, it doesn't matter in terms of the propagation of light.
The aether acts as a singleton. The particles of aether do not exist
in something else.
What is important is the shape and the state of the aether, whether
discussing a particle of aether or the aether as a singleton, is
determined by its connections with the matter. And the shape and state
of the aether as determined by its connections with matter is the
aether's state of displacement.
Surfer
wrote:
Quoting Einstein,
>
>"It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light
>is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the
>nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a
>fluid, but only in a solid."
>
>As I am not a physicist, I have no idea what that means. When I look
>at breakers coming ashore at the seaside, I see what I take to be a
>transverse wave -- what am I missing? What am I seeing instead?
>
The surfaces of bodies of water on earth can support vertical waves.
That is because under the influence of gravity, water tends to find
its own level, and the surface of the water can oscillate above and
below that level.
Such waves are transverse, but they are only possible at the surface.
We don't observe such waves deep under water, and we don't observe
horizontal transverse waves either on the surface of water or deep
underwater.
However it is easy to create transverse waves in a jelly by making it
wobble, or in a rope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave
>
>But now look again at Einstein's stated reason as to why
>theoretically, no motion may be attributed to the ether . . .
>
>> > this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
>> >quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
>> >which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
>> >applied to it.
>
There are two sentences here. You have interpreted the first as
providing a reason for the second. But my interpretation is that both
sentences essentially say the same thing, with no particular reason
given.
So, the two quotes say,
1) The ether must be of the nature of a solid body, but,
2) the idea of motion may not be applied to it.
If both were true we would have a contradiction.
Since a good reason is given for 1) but not for 2), it would seem more
reasonable than not, to reject 2).
>
> It is not so much that Einstein has here determined a dynamical
> ether as absolutely impossible, but simply impossible of detection
>*as motion*--
>
That's a reasonable position, but if the motion existed, it would be
premature to assume it could never be detected.
Surfer
mpc755
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:20:10 -0800 (PST), Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Quoting Einstein,
>
> >"It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light
> >is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the
> >nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a
> >fluid, but only in a solid."
>
> >As I am not a physicist, I have no idea what that means. When I look
> >at breakers coming ashore at the seaside, I see what I take to be a
> >transverse wave -- what am I missing? What am I seeing instead?
>
> The surfaces of bodies of water on earth can support vertical waves.
> That is because under the influence of gravity, water tends to find
> its own level, and the surface of the water can oscillate above and
> below that level.
>
> Such waves are transverse, but they are only possible at the surface.
> We don't observe such waves deep under water, and we don't observe
> horizontal transverse waves either on the surface of water or deep
> underwater.
>
> However it is easy to create transverse waves in a jelly by making it
>
>
>
> >But now look again at Einstein's stated reason as to why
> >theoretically, no motion may be attributed to the ether . . .
>
> >> > this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
> >> >quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> >> >which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
> >> >applied to it.
>
> There are two sentences here. You have interpreted the first as
> providing a reason for the second. But my interpretation is that both
> sentences essentially say the same thing, with no particular reason
> given.
>
> So, the two quotes say,
>
> 1) The ether must be of the nature of a solid body, but,
> 2) the idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>
> If both were true we would have a contradiction.
>
> Since a good reason is given for 1) but not for 2), it would seem more
> reasonable than not, to reject 2).
>
>
>
> > It is not so much that Einstein has here determined a dynamical
> > ether as absolutely impossible, but simply impossible of detection
> >*as motion*--
>
> That's a reasonable position, but if the motion existed, it would be
> premature to assume it could never be detected.
>
> Surfer
Einstein's definition of motion is, "[extended physical objects to
which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time".
Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particle, or not.
Einstein is also not specifically saying the aether cannot be in
motion. What Einstein is specifically saying is the aether does not
consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked
through time.
Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
medium."
and
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
of displacement.
PD
That is not Einstein's definition of motion. Good heavens, you have no
reading comprehension ability whatsoever.
>
> Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particle, or not.
No, what he's saying is that any aether theory that has to consist of
particles (say, to support other properties like elasticity -- which
would REQUIRE particles even if the proposer does not mention them out
loud), and which is claimed to exhibit motion (such as displacement or
entrainment), would be ruled out.
What Einstein is saying is that the only kind of aether theory that is
still left as a possibility is one where there is no entrainment, no
displacement, no elasticity, no pressure.
If you do not understand that this is what Einstein is saying, try
reading the whole article again, because you are not getting it.
mpc755
"[Extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be
applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow
themselves to be separately tracked through time"
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of
motion to the ether."
"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
What part of "consisting of particles which allow themselves to be
separately tracked through time" and "particles observable through
time" and "parts which may be tracked through time" are you not able
to understand?
And then we have:
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
And
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
What is you interpretation of the state of the aether as determined by
its connections with the matter?
The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time,
having no ground for the assumption the aether consists of movable
particles capable of being separately tracked through time, determined
by the aether's connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of displacement.
spudnik
Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
> > > Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> > > than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> > > time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> > > of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> > > medium."
>
> > > and
>
> > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> > > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> > > determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> > > of displacement.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mpc755
"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time." - Albert Einstein
Einstein is referring to the aether in terms of its ponderability to
be the aether not consisting of parts which can be tracked through
time.
What *is* ponderable about the aether is exactly what you included in
your post:
"the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
time" (where Einstein is using the analogy of water for the aether)
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
If we combine the two we get:
The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
displacement.
What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.
spudnik
there is only relative degrees of vacuum,
what is the need for relative dgrees of aether,
to displace the matter that is not in space?
well, what other ponderable properties does it have,
other than this displacement/entrainment?
> If we combine the two we get:
>
> The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
> every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
> the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
> displacement.
>
> What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.
thus:
but the models have always coroberated (sp.?) "global" warming,
even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
of the climate). of course,
you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
what ones do you ascribe to?
please note that on the equinox at noon, if
insolation is "one" at the equator, then
it is basically "zero" at both poles;
a model is always correct, at least twice a year!
> That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
> warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.
thus:
so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mpc755
> do you posit that "the vacuum" is just aether?... so, if
> there is only relative degrees of vacuum,
> what is the need for relative dgrees of aether,
> to displace the matter that is not in space?
>
> well, what other ponderable properties does it have,
> other than this displacement/entrainment?
>
Besides displacement I'm not really sure, since entrainment is a form
of displacement.
The aether is not a rest when displaced, so there is the associated
aether pressure the aether exerts back towards the matter.
The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects is gravity.
> > If we combine the two we get:
Just Me
> so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
> Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
Spudnik makes a joke! And it is perhaps a good one, since
"ponderable" in the now archaic sense that Einstein uses it, simply
refers to any mass or body with measurable weight, which brings to
mind something Einstein had to say in the same paper, with regard to
"action at a distance" . . .
"It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a
sense action at a distance, plays a very important part."
Keeping in mind the diametrical opposition he sets up between
"ponderable matter" and the ether, it would seem quite clear that the
ether would be 'imponderable', without weight, and therefore having no
fluid-like capacity to exert "pressures" of any sort upon ponderable
matter.
Now, 'weight' is a production of gravity. Any ponderable mass subject
to the force of gravity is therefore subject to "action at a
distance", which action is, for one thing, a potential for
acceleration in free fall. This is interesting insofar as it is the
same as to say that the weight of any ponderable mass, is in it, due
to something distant which is at the same time *in* the body
proportional to it's mass.
But so long as the ether remains a completely imponderable mystery, we
can only look at it in terms of what it does: it induces into the mass
a potential for acceleration: weight. And weight is defined as a
*force*. Can this force be seen as "potential energy" that becomes
"kinetic" only in a state of fall? Whatever the case, we ask again,
what IS that 'distant' source of force, since it is not the mass of
the body which only receives it, proportional to the mass? Of course,
we of the 19th Century jump up to proclaim, it is nothing other than
the all pervading ether!
The ether, which as it permeates all the ponderable matter in the
universe, consists of an imponderable network of pathways, vectors of
force between all the masses in existence. And that, again, is
gravity--but what is it really?
One hunch is trying to tell me that the ether--although it cannot,
according to Einstein, in and of itself have the property of motion--
who is to say that it cannot be, so to speak, a "registrar of all
motions," something unitary and stationary through which all things
move, and as such is the receptor and distributer of the force of all
the motion in the cosmos. Or let us perhaps say it is the
"conservator" of all those motions.
>
> > > > Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> > > > than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> > > > time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> > > > of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> > > > medium."
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> > > > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> > > > determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> > > > of displacement.
Since I am not finding the term "displacement" in this paper by
Einstein, I am led to believe you are using the term somehow
interchangeably with his term, "deformation". And in thinking further
about those terms, it strikes me that we might all do well, for the
time being anyway, to give up all hydrodynamic analogies in search of
something we haven't yet conceived that might be more profitable. My
own analogy about the wake of a ship strikes me now as being quite
false especially in view of the basic hydrodynamic law about the
"incompressibility of water". When Einstein is talking about
"deformation" I'm sure that he is seeing something that I, myself, am
yet quite blind to.
It's been a couple of days, but here's a big thanks to the person who
took the trouble to explain for me the physics of the transverse wave
phenomenon.
--
JM http://doo-dads.blogspot.com
mpc755
> On Jan 13, 9:00 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
> > Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
>
> Spudnik makes a joke! And it is perhaps a good one, since
> "ponderable" in the now archaic sense that Einstein uses it, simply
> refers to any mass or body with measurable weight, which brings to
> mind something Einstein had to say in the same paper, with regard to
> "action at a distance" . . .
>
> "It is true that even in everyday experience weight, which is in a
> sense action at a distance, plays a very important part."
>
> Keeping in mind the diametrical opposition he sets up between
> "ponderable matter" and the ether, it would seem quite clear that the
> ether would be 'imponderable', without weight, and therefore having no
> fluid-like capacity to exert "pressures" of any sort upon ponderable
> matter.
>
"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time."
Einstein continually refers to the aether as not consisting of
particles which may be separately tracked through time. Einstein is
not saying the aether does, or does not, consist of particles, only
that without particles which can be separately tracked through time,
the aether is not ponderable in terms of its motion.
What Einstein refers to in 'ponderable' is the aether's ability to be
measured in and of itself.
Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so the
aether does have mass. But since it is the lowest common denominator
of matter, it can't be measured. It is the same conceptually as a
photon having a rest mass of zero. If a photon is a quantum of aether
when it is at rest, not to suggest that is what the aether consists
of, then even if the photon, as a quantum of aether, has mass, since
nothing has less mass and you cannot track that individual photon
separately through time (i.e. you cannot measure the individual
photon), then it is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the photon for
having a rest mass of zero.
The same is true for the aether. There is no way to measure the
aether's mass. There is no way to measure the aether in any way
possible in and of itself. There is nothing with less mass per volume
than the aether. It is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the aether
for having no mass.
'Ponderable' means measurable in and of itself.
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
Nothing else is observable (i.e. measurable) other than the shape of
the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time. And even that
is not measurable directly. We can only measure the shape of the
aether as being displaced by matter.
The aether does not have to be compressible. At least not between its
state as aether and when it is 'fully' compressed into matter.
When you put a bowling ball into a tank of water, the water is
displaced but not compressed.
The same for the bow wave a boat makes. The boat does not compress the
water. The boat displaces the water.
'Deformation' is the aether's state of displacement.
spudnik
not to mention, translation!
if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
interpretation for no reason
-- although all of their properties are dual,
just like in projective geometry & so on --
you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?
> Aether is uncompressed matter and matter is compressed aether, so the
> aether does have mass. But since it is the lowest common denominator
> of matter, it can't be measured. It is the same conceptually as a
> photon having a rest mass of zero. If a photon is a quantum of aether
> when it is at rest, not to suggest that is what the aether consists
> of, then even if the photon, as a quantum of aether, has mass, since
> nothing has less mass and you cannot track that individual photon
> separately through time (i.e. you cannot measure the individual
> photon), then it is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the photon for
> having a rest mass of zero.
>
> The same is true for the aether. There is no way to measure the
> aether's mass. There is no way to measure the aether in any way
> possible in and of itself. There is nothing with less mass per volume
> than the aether. It is perfectly reasonable to 'mistake' the aether
> for having no mass.
> Nothing else is observable (i.e. measurable) other than the shape of
> the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time. And even that
> is not measurable directly. We can only measure the shape of the
> aether as being displaced by matter.
thus:
"Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
glaciers are expanding."
garbage up; garbage down?
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mpc755
> ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
> not to mention, translation!
>
> if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
> of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
> for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
>
A photon is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected
collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether (the ability of the
photon to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether travels a
single path while the photon wave travels available paths), or a
photon is a quantum of aether creating a displacement wave in the
aether, or a photon is something else.
spudnik
I saw the "photon" cartoon you posted,
which was neither a wave nor a particle;
more of like a wiggly vector but, so, What's it mean?
it just does not pay, in spite of lots of precedent,
to confuse the two, dual natures of light --
use one or the other, or pause to explain why,
you suddenly shift from one perspective
to the other (no matter how fatuous,
either is, as it stands) without changing (or
even briefly considering) the math.
(the example of the "two column proof"
in projective geometry shows the problem;
you don't *need* both, and
you should never mix the proofs!)
> A photon is a directed/pointed wave in the aether which when detected
> collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether (the ability of the
> photon to collapse and be detected as a quantum of aether travels a
> single path while the photon wave travels available paths), or a
> photon is a quantum of aether creating a displacement wave in the
> aether, or a photon is something else.
thus:
the models are very hoary, but not frosty, and
have been since no body ever modeled a typical glass house,
including Svente Ahrrenius. and,
the reportage is understandably but lamentably selective.
> Meanwhile even the world's best "guess" model, Hansen C, has failed by far.
thus:
"Most of the newly discovered glaciers are covered with rocky debris;
continuous freezing and thawing splinters the brittle granite that
forms some of the park's majestic peaks. Park officials say
comparisons with historical photos suggest that at least some of the
glaciers are expanding."
garbage up; garbage down?
thus:
ah, the treacly doohickey of language --
not to mention, translation!
if you would jettison the mere mathematical duality
of the "photon," and stick with the expanding wavefront
for a while, where'd go your quantum of aether?
if you insist on springing from wave- to particle-
interpretation for no reason
-- although all of their properties are dual,
just like in projective geometry & so on --
you won't get much that is reasonable; eh?
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
mpc755
> work it -- the pitter-patter of mealy-mouthed language!... well,
> I saw the "photon" cartoon you posted,
> which was neither a wave nor a particle;
> more of like a wiggly vector but, so, What's it mean?
>
The animation you saw here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRNZNemQyY
Is of a particle and its associated aether wave, not a photon in
particular.
spudnik
to bother with any particle, at all,
when dealing with light; so,
stick with light, for now, not fullerenes.
the real point is that, some ways beyond Einstein,
the experiments of magnetohydrodynamics more
than adequately explain the behavior of light,
qua the alleged vacuum of space (that is,
plasma, which has dipolar momentum, and
dihydrogen, which does not; I also gave
-- what I'd just read with mild comprehension --
the condition under which Alfven waves become ordinary light).
> The animation you saw here
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRNZNemQyY
> is of a particle and its associated aether wave, not a photon in
> particular.
thus:
(the example of the "two column proof"
in projective geometry shows the problem;
you don't *need* both, and
you should never mix the proofs!)
thus:
mpc755
> I didn't see that one, but we just do not have
> to bother with any particle, at all,
> when dealing with light; so,
> stick with light, for now, not fullerenes.
>
You have to 'bother' with the photon being detected as a quantum of
aether.
Arindam Banerjee
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:855bd7fe-b7b0-4b6f...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 9, 10:53 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Dear Just Me,
>
> Thanks for your reply. Looks like you are hitting the right area. I
> will carefully reply to your post, as it is very important that I do
> so.
>
> **By the way, I am reposting this using Outlook Express for it looks like
> the post I made in Google you have not seen yet, and it has not come on
> Outlook Express.**
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam
>
> On Jan 4, 6:33 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > Dear All,
> > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in
> > > public
>To make my point clear -
> according to the ether theory, ether is a SOLID which is very fine,
> and permeating all of space.
Great! You have made yourself clear! This is exactly the 19th
century model of the ether. Given that you have rediscovered it, maybe
you could answer some questions which were still unresolved in 1900.
1) Since the ether is a solid, it must have longitudinal modes of
vibration. So light in a vacuum should have a longitudinal
polarization, in addition to the transverse polarizations that we know
about. Yet, longitudinal vibrations have never been found. Why?
AB: Such is the nature of ether. Sound has longitudinal modes of vibration,
for sound does not travel in vacuum - it needs matter to travel in. The
text book I read gave a lot of good explanations why em had to be
transverse. I think I have quoted some in
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
2) Every vibrational wave we know about travels at a fixed speed
relative to the center of mass of the medium it travels in. Yet you
tell us that light picks up a component of velocity from it source.
AB: That much is proved by the Michelson Morley Interferometry experiment.
How can a vibrational wave in the ether pick up a velocity from its
source?
AB: Because the wave emanates from matter which has a velocity with respect
to the ether - the resulting em wave thus has the speed of light plus the
speed of the matter transmitting it. Just as matter bends em, slows it,
etc. matter's velocity wrt the ether also changes the velocity of the em
wave with respect to the ether that is static.
3) The ether transmits electromagnetic waves.
AB: NO. The ether is the medium for em. EM waves are transmitted by
disturbance caused to ether by oscillations in matter. In short, matter
moves, and shakes the ether. The shaken ether transmits the shake, at light
speed.
Thus, it must also
transmit electric and magnetic fields under near field conditions. For
example, it must transmit static magnetic fields (read bar magnet) and
static electric fields (read charged body). How does the ether
transmit both electric and magnetic field?
4) Using the ether, explain the force laws of the electromagnetic
field. As a reminder, explain:
F=q(E+vxB)
where F is the force, q is the electric charge, E is the electric
field, and B is the magnetic field.
F, E, B and v are three dimensional vectors BTW, q is a scalar.
Try to explain these these facts about the electromagnetic field
using your ether model.
AB: Your points are totally irrelevant to what I have been writing. Let me
know if you have worked 11 years developing antennas for the military as I
have, then I may consider you to be a colleague.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:DJf4n.1636$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Another thing, when you have made radiating elements (dipoles, monopoles,
horn antennas, helical antennas, etc. ) work, and work well by tweaking
certain physical parameters to get acceptable VSWRs, then inevitably what
happens is that you lose any respect that was you ever had for Quantum
Theory. Not that the Quantum Theory is as disastrous as the theories of
relativity - it is just outdated with advances in antenna theory and
developments.
AB
PD
> Sorry for the delays, I will answer all the rational posts to my articles.
>
Then the nature of the ether is not solid, because in a solid ether,
longitudinal vibrations would be found.
Saying that they just aren't because it's "the nature of the ether"
that they aren't is just waving hands over a problem
> Sound has longitudinal modes of vibration,
> for sound does not travel in vacuum - it needs matter to travel in.
Sound travels in matter because the laws that govern the interactions
of that matter can be cast in the form of a differential equation
called the wave equation, which has waves as a solution. This doesn't
mean that all waves require matter. If there are laws that govern
interactions even in cases where there is no matter present, and those
laws can be cast in the form of the wave equation, then waves result.
> The
> text book I read gave a lot of good explanations why em had to be
> transverse.
And those reasons would not apply in a solid ether.
> I think I have quoted some inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> 2) Every vibrational wave we know about travels at a fixed speed
> relative to the center of mass of the medium it travels in. Yet you
> tell us that light picks up a component of velocity from it source.
>
> AB: That much is proved by the Michelson Morley Interferometry experiment.
No, it does not PROVE it. It is consistent with it. To prove it, you
have to find a result that is consistent with that hypothesis and
INCONSISTENT with other hypotheses. Since the Michelson Morley
experiment is also consistent with special relativity, which holds
that the velocity of light is independent of the source, then this
experiment clearly does not PROVE that velocity depends on the source.
>
> How can a vibrational wave in the ether pick up a velocity from its
> source?
>
> AB: Because the wave emanates from matter which has a velocity with respect
> to the ether - the resulting em wave thus has the speed of light plus the
> speed of the matter transmitting it. Just as matter bends em, slows it,
> etc. matter's velocity wrt the ether also changes the velocity of the em
> wave with respect to the ether that is static.
>
> 3) The ether transmits electromagnetic waves.
>
> AB: NO. The ether is the medium for em. EM waves are transmitted by
> disturbance caused to ether by oscillations in matter. In short, matter
> moves, and shakes the ether. The shaken ether transmits the shake, at light
> speed.
When a vibrating string shakes air, the shaken air transmits the
shake, at sonic speed. When this happens, we say that the air
transmits sound waves. And yet you say the ether does NOT transmit
light waves. Hmmmmm.....
>
> Thus, it must also
> transmit electric and magnetic fields under near field conditions. For
> example, it must transmit static magnetic fields (read bar magnet) and
> static electric fields (read charged body). How does the ether
> transmit both electric and magnetic field?
>
> 4) Using the ether, explain the force laws of the electromagnetic
> field. As a reminder, explain:
> F=q(E+vxB)
> where F is the force, q is the electric charge, E is the electric
> field, and B is the magnetic field.
> F, E, B and v are three dimensional vectors BTW, q is a scalar.
> Try to explain these these facts about the electromagnetic field
> using your ether model.
>
> AB: Your points are totally irrelevant to what I have been writing. Let me
> know if you have worked 11 years developing antennas for the military as I
> have, then I may consider you to be a colleague.
He asked you a fair question. And at that point you dismissed his fair
question by asserting that you will only answer fair questions if
they've been working on it as long as you.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
mpc755
Discussing the ether as solid or not solid is missing the point. It
doesn't matter if the aether is a solid, or the aether consists of
quanta of aether. Light would propagate through each the same way. You
are comparing the behavior of light waves in a liquid in which
molecules exist in the aether, to the aether being a 'liquid'
consisting of aether particles. If the aether consists of particles
(quanta of aether) then the aether particles do not exist in the
aether, the aether particles are the aether.
PD
This is wrong, mpc. Signals in solid media have different properties
than in fluid media.
This has been known for two hundred years. Do catch up.
spudnik
you give no experimental hypothesis as to any difference,
at all, that this stuff should make ... gee;
is it a liquid or a solid or, What?
Michelson-Morley did not get a null result, and
this finding was enhanced by others, later!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
thus quoth:
Spring 1998 Vol. 11, No. 1
Michelson-Morley-Miller: The Coverup
The Experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926) and the Theory of
Relativity
Maurice Allais
On My Experiments in Physics, 1952-1960
Maurice Allais
Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity rest on the
allegedly null results of Michelson’s interferometer experiment. Here,
a French physicist and Nobel Laureate in economics, demonstrates that
Michelson’s results were not null, and that the interferometer
experiments of the American scientist Dayton Miller produced positive
results, thereby invalidating the foundation of the Theory of
Relativity.
Background: Optical Theory in the 19th Century, and the Truth about
Michelson-Morley-Miller
Laurence Hecht
To understand the ground-breaking significance of Dayton Miller’s
ether drift measurements, one must go back to the original discoveries
of Fresnel on the wave theory of light and its subsequent development
in the 19th century.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202008/F-W_2008/Planck_150th.pdf
(compare with http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm .-)
Into Space from the Sea
Oleg A. Sokolov
Since the dawn of the space age, nations have lofted satellites into
space from launch sites on land. Soon, for the first time, satellites
will also be reaching space from the sea.
All Chernobyl’s Victims:
A Realistic Assessment of Chernobyl’s Health Effects
Zbigniew Jaworowski
spudnik
of a "photon," other than a mere interpretation
of an electronic reading, and a century's blather
from the Copenhagenskool and its undead catpeople?
all essenttial properties of light are wavey, in spite
of the fact that there's a "dual" mathematical interpretation,
since Pauli made his matrices, and the possiblity
of making a photonic model a la ray-tracing.
> You have to 'bother' with the photon being detected as a quantum of
> aether.
thus:
Bappa
Why? In any case, there are longitudinal vibrations of the electric
field in TM (Transverse Magnetic) mode in a waveguide. So it is
rubbish to say that ether does not support longitudinal vibrations
(that is, where the electric or magnetic field is vibrating in the
direction of wave propagation) of em waves. TEM mode is the most
common mode, and perhaps the lay mind understands only that! However,
given that hollow rectangular waveguides cannot support TEM mode, the
professional antenna engineer needs to understand the TE or TM modes
of propagation, in order to get the minimum dimensions among other
aspects... However, all this is besides the point, of what I have
been saying. Which to repeat, are:
- the MMI experiment was a huge bungle from top to bottom, and it
proved exactly the opposite of what is stated (namely, that the speed
of light does vary with the speed of the emitter of light source, if
we allow that the Earth is moving around the Sun) It is pure
churlishness, based as I believe upon racism and bigotry, which is
causing these evasions and indifference to this original finding of
mine, from both the all-controlling establishment and the unscientific
or corrupt diehards, that is expressed in detal in
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
> Saying that they just aren't because it's "the nature of the ether"
> that they aren't is just waving hands over a problem
Nor does his deliberate indifference to what I am trying to say. Or
yours, as I suspect. Yes, the nature of ether according to 19th
century scientists is as I have written (or rather, quoted from a
textbook) and that is simply their definition based upon their
understanding. As such, the existence of ether is unimportant to the
main points which are:
1. The Earth is moving
2. Because the Earth is moving, light has to travel greater or lesser
distances with respect to any measured length on a fixed platform
(now this is the highly subtle, original and most important point
which outs the whole structure of Einstein's relativity)
3. The null results show that light has to travel at greater or lesser
speeds depending upon the velocity of the emitter
Please read my above article, which deals with the above points in
much greater detail.
> > Sound has longitudinal modes of vibration,
> > for sound does not travel in vacuum - it needs matter to travel in.
>
> Sound travels in matter because the laws that govern the interactions
> of that matter can be cast in the form of a differential equation
> called the wave equation, which has waves as a solution.
The above shows the now-classical mentality of modern scientists. No
use for any argument,logic or any half-decent rhetoric, just blindly
follow the dictates of some mathematical mumbo-jumbo! You prove
nothing by such rubbish! What a sad state this is! No wonder all
practical engineers have nothing but the deepest disdain of such
nincompoops who jabber something, then hurriedly write down some math-
crap and make derivations upon same! Then enjoy high prestige from
the fools who control the funds, simply because the fools being fools
cannot see anything beyond the hocus-pocus. This is a hoary racket,
though.
This racket, however, is brutally exposed when they totally ignore
*my* mathematical formula linking mass and energy,which has been
around for years.
Sound travels in matter because it just does that! It does not travel
in vacuum. Period. So much comes from experiment. Maths is only a
way of representing reality - reality is supreme, conjecture or theory
comes second.
>This doesn't
> mean that all waves require matter.
All waves require a medium. Ether is the stated medium of
electromagnetic waves according to the now re-instituted 19th century
physics. Re-instituted because the MMI expt did not disprove it, and
because the em waves are a fact of nature. They do travel without
requiring matter.
If there are laws that govern
> interactions even in cases where there is no matter present, and those
> laws can be cast in the form of the wave equation, then waves result.
Waves result when something material is disturbed. When something is
disturbed, and that something is connected to a medium (ether, matter)
which it disturbs, that disturbed ether or matter disturbs the
contiguous ether or matter while remaining put in the same space - so
it is the disturbance that propagates with a finite velocity,
depending upon the nature of the medium. That is how waves result -
of *any* sort. Maths and physics are related to modelling the whole
thing realistically - with differential equations, physical constants,
laws of physics relating the changing electric field with the changing
magnetic field etc. In the case of em waves, the physical constants
involved are the dielectric constants, the magnetic permeability,
electric permittivity, etc.
> > The
> > text book I read gave a lot of good explanations why em had to be
> > transverse.
>
> And those reasons would not apply in a solid ether.
They said that ether was a solid and highly so, and that is that. It
is a definition of ether. Ether has to be a very fine, all-permeating
solid by their own definition. It fills the entire universe. Whether
you like it or not, that is their DEFINITION.
> > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bappa
>
> > I think I have quoted some inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> > 2) Every vibrational wave we know about travels at a fixed speed
> > relative to the center of mass of the medium it travels in. Yet you
> > tell us that light picks up a component of velocity from it source.
>
> > AB: That much is proved by the Michelson Morley Interferometry experiment.
>
> No, it does not PROVE it.
It does. I have written about this in detail - in fact, this is my
main point and you just won't accept it. To repeat:
1. The Earth is moving
2. Because it is moving, light has to travel a greater or lesser
distance than the measured distance. Because, the end point has
shifted by the time it has reached it, as the Earth is moving.
3. Because the MMI gives null results, the speed of light *has* to be
correspondingly greater or lesser depending upon the velocity of the
emitting source.
So, the MMI proves that the first postulate of Einstein's SR is wrong.
While I sadly feel that no einsteinian will admit my existence, my
main hope lies in intelligent kids 13+ of age, who are likely to be
not brainwashed. The future of physics (and of course, the world) is
with them, after all.
It is consistent with it. To prove it, you
> have to find a result that is consistent with that hypothesis and
> INCONSISTENT with other hypotheses. Since the Michelson Morley
> experiment is also consistent with special relativity, which holds
> that the velocity of light is independent of the source, then this
> experiment clearly does not PROVE that velocity depends on the source.
Read what I wrote above. The whole thing was a bungle (trying to find
the speed of the earth which respect to ether, an impossible task) and
not finding that, these incredible bunglers came to all sorts of
bizarre conclusions, SR among them.
>
> > How can a vibrational wave in the ether pick up a velocity from its
> > source?
>
> > AB: Because the wave emanates from matter which has a velocity with respect
> > to the ether - the resulting em wave thus has the speed of light plus the
> > speed of the matter transmitting it. Just as matter bends em, slows it,
> > etc. matter's velocity wrt the ether also changes the velocity of the em
> > wave with respect to the ether that is static.
>
> > 3) The ether transmits electromagnetic waves.
>
> > AB: NO. The ether is the medium for em. EM waves are transmitted by
> > disturbance caused to ether by oscillations in matter. In short, matter
> > moves, and shakes the ether. The shaken ether transmits the shake, at light
> > speed.
>
> When a vibrating string shakes air, the shaken air transmits the
> shake, at sonic speed. When this happens, we say that the air
> transmits sound waves.
It is the string that shakes, it is the air that gets shaken. And the
air being matter is the medium which transmits the shake to other
matter (which could be the contiguous air, or eardrum) which then gets
shaken. The air is the medium which carries the sound waves, and the
string which is shaken is the transmitter of the sound wave.
And yet you say the ether does NOT transmit
> light waves. Hmmmmm.....
Similarly ether does not transmit light waves, it merely carries it as
a medium.
> > Thus, it must also
> > transmit electric and magnetic fields under near field conditions. For
> > example, it must transmit static magnetic fields (read bar magnet) and
> > static electric fields (read charged body). How does the ether
> > transmit both electric and magnetic field?
>
> > 4) Using the ether, explain the force laws of the electromagnetic
> > field. As a reminder, explain:
> > F=q(E+vxB)
> > where F is the force, q is the electric charge, E is the electric
> > field, and B is the magnetic field.
> > F, E, B and v are three dimensional vectors BTW, q is a scalar.
> > Try to explain these these facts about the electromagnetic field
> > using your ether model.
>
> > AB: Your points are totally irrelevant to what I have been writing. Let me
> > know if you have worked 11 years developing antennas for the military as I
> > have, then I may consider you to be a colleague.
>
> He asked you a fair question.
He did not. I found nothing fair about him, or you. If you or he had
been fair, you would have touched about the main problem about 19th
century physics - why was the Sun hot? Why radiant energy from
certain minerals? It had nothing to do with the main point, which was
19th century physics ideas about ether and to a greater extent my
analysis of the MMI experiment. He totally ignored it, as you have.
You two have not earned any respect from me, but don't feel
discouraged - I despise all modern physicists as deeply as possible.
And at that point you dismissed his fair
> question by asserting that you will only answer fair questions if
> they've been working on it as long as you.
That is one way to dismiss those who try their poor best to dismiss
mpc755
I realize this is impossible for you to do because you think you
already know everything, but you might actually respond correctly to a
post if you read the complete post before responding.
Light behaves differently in a solid than in a fluid media because a
fluid media consists of molecules which are free to move in the
aether. The molecules do not act as a singleton. Light waves are
traveling through the aether having to interact with the molecules
which are free to move.
The aether is either a singleton or it consists of particles (quanta
of aether). If the aether consists of particles of aether, the
particles do not exist in the aether. The particles are the aether.
Have you made it to this point in my response?
If the aether consists of quanta of aether, it still behaves as a
singleton. The aether particles in the aether are not free to move 'in
the aether'. The aether particles are the aether.
One more time, just to check to see how far you made it in my
response.
If the aether consists of particles, the aether will still behave as a
singleton, because the aether particles are the aether.
If the aether consists of particles, the light waves propagate through
the aether as though the aether were a singleton.
Androcles
"Bappa" <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58bc5135-b1c6-4259...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> All waves require a medium.
All your screaming and hollering and stamping your
feet boils down to that one belief, that single faith.
Your statement is FALSE.
I'm not going to explain why it is false, you have your
head so far up your own arse you would not listen if I
did, but I am going to say this.
Magnetic fields require no medium. I have the burden of
proving they exist, you have the burden of proving they
require a medium.
Proof that a magnetic field exists:
Go look at an electric motor.
PD
You did not understand Arindam's assertion that the aether itself is a
solid, not that solids and liquids exist alongside the aether.
mpc755
If the aether consists of particles (quanta of aether), the aether
particles are not free to move 'in the aether' as are molecules in the
aether in a fluid media. The aether particles are the aether. If the
aether consists of quanta of aether, the aether still behaves as a
singleton.
It doesn't matter if the aether is a singleton or consists of aether
particles, light waves propagating through the aether are propagating
through the aether as a singleton.
spudnik
with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
this alleged "null" result. notably,
DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
would you like the references, again --
can I trust you to try to read them?
it is really to bad, that
Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
(of "space-time").
> 3. Because the MMI gives null results, the speed of light *has* to be
> correspondingly greater or lesser depending upon the velocity of the
> emitting source.
> So, the MMI proves that the first postulate of Einstein's SR is wrong.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
Saving the Bathwater
What caused the global economy to collapse? The myth, created by the
international financier mafia, is that we had a "credit crunch" caused
by the collapse of the U.S. subprime housing market. That, in turn,
caused investors to panic and stop buying, freezing up the entire
system. To restart the system, the central banks and governments
flooded the banks with liquidity, becoming the buyers of last resort
for mountains of toxic waste whose values, they assured us, would
return once the panic subsided.
To listen to them blather, that is exactly what happened. Their quick
and decisive action—heroic, really—saved the day, returned the banking
system to health, and even turned a profit. They became legends in
their own minds.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2010/3702next_hyperinflation.html
spudnik
an electrical motor provides no medium
for the magnetic fields, or the air, for that matter?
> Proof that a magnetic field exists:
> Go look at an electric motor.
thus:
apparently, Michelson-Morley's experiments, especially
with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
this alleged "null" result. notably,
DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
would you like the references, again --
can I trust you to try to read them?
it is really to bad, that
Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
(of "space-time").
> 3. Because the MMI gives null results, the speed of light *has* to be
> correspondingly greater or lesser depending upon the velocity of the
> emitting source.
> So, the MMI proves that the first postulate of Einstein's SR is wrong.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
Saving the Bathwater
spudnik
> It doesn't matter if the aether is a singleton or consists of aether
> particles, light waves propagating through the aether are propagating
> through the aether as a singleton.
thus:
why do you say that
an electrical motor provides no medium
for the magnetic fields, or the air, for that matter?
> Proof that a magnetic field exists:
> Go look at an electric motor.
thus:
apparently, Michelson-Morley's experiments, especially
with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
this alleged "null" result. notably,
DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
would you like the references, again --
can I trust you to try to read them?
it is really to bad, that
Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
(of "space-time").
> 3. Because the MMI gives null results, the speed of light *has* to be
> correspondingly greater or lesser depending upon the velocity of the
> emitting source.
> So, the MMI proves that the first postulate of Einstein's SR is wrong.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
Saving the Bathwater
http://larouchepub.com/other/2010/3702next_hyperinflation.html
Bappa
wrote:
> "Bappa" <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:58bc5135-b1c6-4259...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...> All waves require a medium.
>
> =========================
> All your screaming and hollering and stamping your
> feet boils down to that one belief, that single faith.
Yes. There has to be a medium for the transmission of any wave. In
the case of em, it is ether.
> Your statement is FALSE.
No, you are the one who is screaming and hollering. Ether exists as a
solid filling the entire universe. This is a statement, to justify
the existence and propagation of electromagnetic waves. I am quoting
19th century physicists, who stated that ether existed.
Relativity is not just false, it is falsifying. It makes liars and
monsters out of humans.
More on:
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
> I'm not going to explain why it is false, you have your
> head so far up your own arse you would not listen if I
> did, but I am going to say this.
See, how the crappy theories of relativity you believe in has turned
you into a lying, abusing character? Sad! You do not have the wits
to understand my objections laid to the first postulate that is the
basis of all the relativity nonsense, so you resort to abuse like any
spoilt and ill-bred child?
> Magnetic fields require no medium.
Travelling magnetic and electric fields requrie a medium, and that is
ether. A static magnetic field is just that.
I have the burden of
> proving they exist, you have the burden of proving they
> require a medium.
>
> Proof that a magnetic field exists:
> Go look at an electric motor.
You are not making any sense to me here. So, lecture follows.
Evidently you have not the faintest idea of radiation involving
electromagnetic waves, which is what we are talking about. Electric
motors do not transmit electromagnetic waves. Only when we are
talking about the travelling em wave, does the concept of the medium
of propagation take relevance.
In their ignorance of modern antenna theory and atomic structure, the
early quantum theory (another piece of useless nonsense) was
developed. That has confused everyone, except those whose job it was
to make radiators was. A person such as I, for instance. See how it
is - you do the fundamental work to kick off business worth billions,
and those who make the billions ignore you and stick to the crappy and
wrong quantum theory!
A magnetic field has to be associated with a current. In magnetic
materials their are small currents happening within the material,
naturally (or with induction). So there is a net magnetic field - our
Earth has one. The presence of a magnetic field shows the
existence,thus, of an electric current.
A changing electric field create a changing magnetic field - this is
what Maxwell's laws are all about. And a changing magnetic field
creates a changing electric field. The trick with making antennas
work is to make them escape from the metallic confines, where they are
generated by oscillators, into free space. And this exactly was my
personal expertise. You have to take into account many geometrical
features, modes of propagation, inductances represented by certain
materials, etc., balance to unbalance conversions, etc. to make this
happen. NOTHING to do with silly quantum theory!
So the ether has to be excited in a certain way for em waves to
propagate.
Arindam Banerjee
spudnik
to have no aether to get in its way; but
the rods & cones are all (conical" "log-spiral antennae," and
how'd a photon impale itself on such a structure?
> So the ether has to be excited in a certain way for em waves to
> propagate.
thus:
as for acid rain, that is the supposed great success
of capNtrade; I'd just learned that my Rep. Waxman had
brought *that* bill in, as well, under HW in '91. so,
why does not the Wall St. Urinal et al tell us,
just how wonderful it was & is?
it was capNtrade on NOx and SO2. now,
why this should be an all-encompassing panacea
for CO2 -- probably, but
why can't we just have a small tax on carbon, instead
of letting the arbitrageurs skim it off --
is it possible to have a bit of both?
thus:
OK, what in Heck is the other property of a "singleton?"
> It doesn't matter if the aether is a singleton or consists of aether
> particles, light waves propagating through the aether are propagating
> through the aether as a singleton.
thus:
why do you say that
an electrical motor provides no medium
for the magnetic fields, or the air, for that matter?
thus:
apparently, Michelson-Morley's experiments, especially
with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
this alleged "null" result. notably,
DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
would you like the references, again --
can I trust you to try to read them?
it is really to bad, that
Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
(of "space-time").
--l'OEuvre!
Bappa
> apparently, Michelson-Morley's experiments, especially
> with the "gas mode" interferometer, were simply not
> this alleged "null" result. notably,
> DCMiller's work improved upon the non-null results.
Is this a desperate effort by einsteinians to regain credibility?
Look, the MMI null experiment was performed in seriousness for
generations, and has been extolled in a standard textbook from which I
have quoted verbatim and presented in my site:
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm
Everyone agreed on the null results, and this was the most standard
and respectable pillar of all the resulting modern physics, including
the famous e=mcc nonsense.
To say now that they actually did not get nulls, is strange. When
they have been saying for decades and generations or even a whole
century and more, as the greatest proof for the first postualate.
Very fishy, but what else can be expected from mountebanks posing as
scientists?
> would you like the references, again --
> can I trust you to try to read them?
No thank you. Honest bungling as I have exposed is vastly preferable
to analyse as opposed to the slimy, dishonest hand-waving of wrong
results, the misuse of maths, media bullying, political amd academic
control, etc. all done to protect salaries, pensions and even
reputations of the presently dominant einsteinians.
> it is really to bad, that
> Minkowski's or Lorentz's work had to use teh awful "lightcones,"
> because they totally obscure the phenomena of the phase-space
> (of "space-time").
My mind is at last free of such einsteinian gobbledygook.
>
> > 3. Because the MMI gives null results, the speed of light *has* to be
> > correspondingly greater or lesser depending upon the velocity of the
> > emitting source.
> > So, the MMI proves that the first postulate of Einstein's SR is wrong.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
mpc755
> OK, what in Heck is the other property of a "singleton?"
>
Discussing the aether as a solid or liquid is inaccurate. The aether
acts as a singleton. The aether acts as a one something.
When light travels through a liquid it is propagating with respect to
the aether which exists in the liquid, but the aether also interacts
with the molecules in the liquid.
When light travels through a solid it is propagating with respect to
the aether which exists in the solid, but the aether also interacts
with the molecules in the solid. In a liquid and solid, the wave
propagates through the aether, interacts with a molecule, propagates
through more aether, interacts with another molecule, and so on.
Obviously, the aether does not in and of itself consist of molecules.
It doesn't matter if the aether is a 'one something', or consists of
particles (quanta of aether). Light will behave the same way in both.
If the aether consists of particles, the aether particles do not exist
in the aether. The aether particles are the aether.
A light wave propagating through aether particles is propagating from
aether particle to aether particle.
Whether it be a 'one something' or if it consists of aether particles,
the light wave propagates through a 'singleton' aether.
eric gisse
[...]
New idiot on board.
Bappa
> apparently, folks thought that a "photon" has
> to have no aether to get in its way; but
> the rods & cones are all (conical" "log-spiral antennae," and
> how'd a photon impale itself on such a structure?
What's a photon, but ancient theoretical nonsense that must be
discarded asap? What is generally called a photon is a small time-
burst of travelling electromagnetic wave that has been generated by a
transient dipole of atomic or sub-atomic dimensions; that in turn
created by kinetic energies resulting from material collisions.
This is detailed in a section of my book, "The Principles of Motion"
which will be published when I find the thinking world is ready to
accept the simple truth and not einsteinian bullshit that has debased
everyone and everything.
> > So the ether has to be excited in a certain way for em waves to
> > propagate.
>
> thus:
> as for acid rain, that is the supposed great success
> of capNtrade; I'd just learned that my Rep. Waxman had
> brought *that* bill in, as well, under HW in '91. so,
> why does not the Wall St. Urinal et al tell us,
> just how wonderful it was & is?
Because they are racists and bigots, liiars and hypocrites who
evidently hold that usage of racism and bigotry, lying and hypocrisy
etc are more important to their financial well-being than any
attention of any kind given to my new ideas. Had I been of the human
type they could reconcile with - such as, if I had been a prized USAn
Jew or WASP - I would have got a few Nobel Prizes and also would have
been the world's first trillionaire.
Thus, had I been a USAn Jew/WASP I would have been the most famous
person on Earth - but I sincerely thank the Great Goddess, the
Conqueress of Time and Space, that I an not one of them!
In short, I am thoroughly screwed because the Western world is racist
and bigoted and snooty and so shuts me out since I do not conform to
them by not trashing my own culture and mores, as you have to be a
Rushdie-type; and the culture and mores I belong to has no use for me
as they are corrupt, bootlicking and cowardly reverse-racists. In
short, I am up against the Abominable Garg!
Dear JustMe of rab, please check out the posts in alt.philosophy where
there seems to be some genuine interest.
Cheers, and thanks, dear spudnik, for letting me narrate why no one
would like to take notice of all my brilliant and wonderful new ideas.
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 11:33 pm, Just Me <jpd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 4:18 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear All,
>
> > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> > > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> > > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
> > > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
>
> > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> > > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> > > will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> > > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> > > I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> > > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> > > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> > > correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > Hampton Park, Australia
>
> > In your monograph, you make the following statement . . .
>
> > "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
> > and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference.
>
> Didn't even Newton say that there is no absolute frame of reference
> and that all inertial frames of reference are equally "absolute"?
According to the textbook I quoted from, the fixed frames of reference
were the distant stars. The ether or the solid that fills the
universe, is static and the original purpose of the MMI expt was to
find the speed of the Earth wrt the ether. That was an impossible
task, and led to all sorts of blunders. It is impossible to find a
fixed frame of reference in the Universe (the distant stars are the
closest) but it is possible to say that there is a fixed velocity wrt
ether - which cannot be known, as everything moves in it!
Very interesting, this point - it leads to metaphysics and that is
just what I am presently invovled in, in my prose-poem, "The Birth of
Ganesha".
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
>
>
> > Any
> > object floating on the river, then, has to have the same speed of the
> > river. When an object is stuck to the river bed (not allowed to
> > drift) it is implicitly given a velocity of –v, so that its net
> > velocity with respect to the river bank frame of reference is v-v=0."
>
> > It is here, where an error of thought on your part stands as the basis
> > for your entire theory. You state that "the river is the Earth moving
> > with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of
> > reference." It is quite clear, however that the river is not the
> > "Earth", but a representation for the "ether drift". As the river
> > analogy is given for the thought experiment describing the elements of
> > the M-M experiment, it proceeds entirely on the hypothetical
> > assumption that the only possible "absolute frame of reference" given
> > the putative existence of an ether sea, would be the ether sea itself,
> > or i.e. the flow of the river.
>
> > The thought experiment of sending a swimmer out in perpendicular and
> > parallel directions will bear this out: is there a flow or is there no
> > such thing at all? Of course, the null result of the experiment showed
> > there was no such flow, no sea, no such frame of reference. This fact
> > completely removed the velocity of earth from being any part of the
> > consideration, either with respect to the swimmers or the light rays.
> > The river bank which you posit for the "absolute frame of reference"
> > is no such thing for this experiment, it has no relevance to the
> > analogy because the hypothetical "ether sea" is a sea without banks,
> > and is not like a river in that respect. Flow of the putative ether,
> > as it were water is the only thing relevant to the picture and to the
> > analogy.
>
> > The location of the grounded floats cannot therefore be observed with
> > respect to any nonexistent banks of the ether sea but only with
> > respect to that instant of time when the swimmer dove into the water,
> > and so those floats serve the function of clocks and any spatial
> > location outside the flow is irrelevant. It is an instant in time
> > relative to a position in flow, not a point in space, a position on
> > the bank, that is relevant to this experiment and to theory of the
> > ether. But let us go further. More than that float should represent a
> > clock giving the "instant in time relative to a position in flow" that
> > position in flow is given by the energy, the wave generated there by
> > the stroke of the swimmer, the ray of light.
>
> > The distance that is to be covered by the swimmer, whether parallel or
> > perpendicular to the flow will be given first as a quantity of energy
> > expended over time, with a distance in space revealed as a function of
> > energy/time. And for the analogy to work, the amount of energy
> > expended by both swimmers must be equal, such that if there is no
> > ether flow, then both swimmers will cover the same distance in the
> > same time, or i.e. they would arrive simultaneously at the opposite
> > "clock-float" as it were. So here, the only thing absolute or
> > constant, the only thing fixed, the only thing relevant is the
> > quantity of energy (the speed of light), which either will or will not
> > reveal an equal time and equal distance, a constant velocity.
>
> > The whole idea here is to test the existence of an ether sea, which at
> > the end of the test will either provide the new absolute frame of
> > reference or it will not. There was no such new absolute frame of
> > reference, any more than were any banks to the ether sea. There was
> > only the constant velocity of light, the one absolute.
> > --
> > JM- Hide quoted text -
Arindam Banerjee
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Since no self-respecting person has responded negatively to my paper
> > showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> > that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> > international scrutiny. Over years and years!
>
> That's nonsense. Few physicists monitor these newsgroups, and fewer still
> respond to obviously idiotic postings like yours.
Why is it obviously idiotic? Is it as obvious as your bullying and
indifference? What are such physicists other than parasites, who do
not want to learn anything new?
>
> Lack of response does NOT mean that no response is possible, it merely means
> that nobody has bothered.
Quite, they are all lazy and cowardly, criminal and sneering. Like
you.
>
> When you publish in a journal like the Physical Review, and survive criticism
> there, then you have something. It's HIGHLY doubtful you can do that.
Put me before any committee. If they do not publish my paper, do not
agree to even accepting it, and then blame me for non-publication, is
that my fault? They are all liars, then.
>
> This thread consists merely of unsupported claims and insults.
Completely wrong. See below.
So I don't know
> what your TECHNICAL claims actually are. I do know that Minkowski geometry (the
> basis of SR) has been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry,
> so your objections are OVERWHELMINGLY likely to be mistakes on YOUR part, and
> not actual problems with relativity. That is certainly the case with all the
> other people who post claims around here that "relativity is nonsense".
All irrelevant to my point, which is that the first postulate of
Einstein is a blunder and totally wrong, and weaselling and screaming
on your part do not make any difference. To repeat my points in
brief:
1. The Earth Moves
2. Because it does, light has to travel longer or shorter than any
measured distance, as the Earth Moves.
3. Because of the null results of MMI, light has to travel
correspondingly slower or faster
4. Thus the first postulate is violated.
The above 4 points are perfectly logical and self-consistent, and are
enough and sufficient to blast the whole of modern physics.
I should get a Nobel Prize for that, and would have too, had your
racist and bigoted types not been so dominant.
Further details are in:
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
Now that is probably the most shattering article in physics ever
written, but it will take an intelligent 13+ year old to think so.
Many do, already. Their tribe will increase!
> > Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to
> > object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in
> > other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system?
>
> Hopeless. Even the Bible crowd has not succeeded very well in the U.S. court
Well, I am glad that relativity is considered to be a belief system
which it is as it is nothing scientific.
> system (though they have bulldozed the elementary education system -- courts
> have rules of evidence, but elections to Boards of Education do not). Evolution
> and relativity are two of the best-supported theories we have today; they are as
> solidly established as atomic theory and basic mechanics. Relativity is more
> subtle and counter-intuitive, and evolution contradicts the religious beliefs of
> millions, which is why they come under attack by non-scientists -- such attacks
> so far are completely worthless because they are promulgated by people who
> simply do not understand the theories they are attempting to attack.
Or understand them too well, as in my case. I had to study the crap,
pass exams in not only that bullshit but quantum mechanics as well in
my engineering course. ugh.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> Tom Roberts
Arindam Banerjee
> On Jan 7, 2:11 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:18 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> > > life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
> > > Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> > > gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
> > > ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
>
> > > Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> > > on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> > > will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> > > Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> > > folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> > > I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> > > Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> > > they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> > > our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> > > correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> > > Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> > > Arindam Banerjee
> > > Hampton Park, Australia
>
> > showing that Einstein's theories of relativity are nonsense, I take it
> > that my objections are perfectly valid as they have now passed
> > international scrutiny. Over years and years!
>
> This is like claiming that you have found a cure for cancer. Then to
> test whether your claim is correct, you walk into the lobby of a
> medical insurance company and holler to everyone standing there, "I
> have a cure for cancer! Now is your chance to prove that it's not!"
> And if you are ignored in the lobby of an office building, you tell
> yourself that you've given the world a chance to prove you wrong, and
> they didn't, so you must be right, and could somebody please award you
> some fame for having cured cancer now.
how irrelevant I was only looking for an honest man, found only one
or two so far in the whole of usenet
>
>
>
>
>
> > What next?
>
> > Will any person take the initiative to go to a *court of law* to
> > object against these wrong, worthless and debasing teachings - in
> > other words, pure lies - by the public funded educational system? Do
> > we pay taxes to our governments so that our children are taught to
> > believe in pure lies, nonsense and the resulting incomprehensible
> > gobbledygook?
>
> > Well, I will give the world that cares a few more years, and then if
> > no one with sufficient wits or guts is to be found in the whole world,
> > I myself will give it a go! Too easy, though. I would much rather
> > spend my time with the HTN and IFE. Nevertheless, short cuts need not
> > be scorned, especially in a sensation-crazed world. Hmm, going to a
> > court of law, sounds the right thing to do. Let a professional judge
> > decide on what is essentially a legal matter. In fact, the most
> > fundamental legal matter - the very nature of law, from the law of
> > nature!.
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee.- Hide quoted text -
Arindam Banerjee
> At this stage, the bright ideas claimed inhttp://adda-enterprises.com/home.htmdo not deserve a thorough critique.
>
> The author might begin by reviewing his claims to fact. For example,
> high power electrical lines do not have a 70% loss, but about 7%.
Over what distance? Are you arguing that this 7% is true for *any*
distance? What if the length is only 0.5 Km?
Arindam Banerjee
Look at it this way. I have given away my IP to the world, unlike
what you write about the cancer cure.
What is my expectation?
That 13+ kids will be influenced, positively, and escape the
relativistic indoctrination. A few among them, anyway. For the
elderly are corrupt; the young, not yet.
So even if I do not do anything myself, some one among them will carry
out my ideas after 10-15 years.
I'll still be around then, with some luck.
So, my wife and I can be booked on a trip to the moon and back, after
20 years.
We are googling today, aren't we, and I developed the basics some 23
years ago in a publication, my one and only "A New Method for Partial-
Match Retrievals". At that time I did not think that the work could
be done in a 100 years - in those days the new and terrific 80286
processers were getting batched-up for supercomputing powers!
Disinterested work does result in positive returns, and this is proved
to us by this experience!
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee.
Dono.
>
> Look at it this way. I have given away my IP to the world, unlike
> what you write about the cancer cure.
> What is my expectation?
> That 13+ kids will be influenced, positively, and escape the
> relativistic indoctrination. A few among them, anyway. For the
> elderly are corrupt; the young, not yet.
Oh, put a sock on it. Preferably a dirty one.
Don Stockbauer
> Dear All,
>
> I have been saying all this and much more for years, in Usenet and in public
> life! I had put up the above article in a website which was pulled down by
> Telstra for upgrades. Now, this article is back again, and I do hope it
> gives new, vibrant life to this deluded world. I am glad to see that my
> ideas on the HTN have found favour with many.http://adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm
>
> Unless we throw out the wrong physics of relativity, we cannot get started
> on the Internal Force Engines, which will open up deep space for us as they
> will not be based upon rocketry.
>
> Expect to be back to base after a brief holiday, around the 10th. Please
> folks, do support this or ask what you do not understand about this article.
> I will be most happy to answer honest queries.
>
> http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm
>
> Once we all realise that the theories of relativity are totally nonsense, as
> they are based upon a wrong postulate that is debunked above, we can open
> our mind to the new physics that I have developed. Which is based uipon the
> correct formula linking mass with energy.
>
> Cheers to all, and with best wishes,
>
> Arindam Banerjee
> Hampton Park, Australia
Oh, shut the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Androcles
On Jan 17, 11:45 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_r>
wrote:
> "Bappa" <banerjeeadda1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:58bc5135-b1c6-4259...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...>
> All waves require a medium.
>
> =========================
> All your screaming and hollering and stamping your
> feet boils down to that one belief, that single faith.
Yes. There has to be a medium for the transmission of any wave. In
the case of em, it is ether.
> Your statement is FALSE.
No,
===================================
Your statement is OBVIOUSLY FALSE.
You are an ignorant, stupid bigot.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Arindam Banerjee
ideas of einstein, is most revealing!
I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil
and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long.
And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds
(13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering
based upon my new physics.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
eric gisse
What makes you think you are aaany different from the the current batch of
morons who think relativity is wrong for many - always different - reasons?
Arindam Banerjee
My points are brief and invincible, as evident. Detractors like you,
thus, necessarily have to behave like monkeys.
Had their been any honesty left among the corrupt and degraded Western
elites, I would have been given the Nobel Prize in Physics very long
ago.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Bappa
> On Jan 19, 1:40 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > That *only* monkeys of various sorts are around to defend the crappy
> > > ideas of einstein, is most revealing!
>
> > > I hope and believe that sooner or later taxpayers will note this evil
> > > and disastrous fraud of relativity, which has lasted far too long.
> > > And I further hope and believe that the young and uncorrupted minds
> > > (13+ kids) will understand, take up and develop sound engineering
> > > based upon my new physics.
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > Arindam Banerjee
>
> > What makes you think you are aaany different from the the current batch of
> > morons who think relativity is wrong for many - always different - reasons?
>
> My points are brief and invincible, as evident. Detractors like you,
> thus, necessarily have to behave like monkeys.
> elites, I would have been given the Nobel Prize in Physics very long
> ago.
> Cheers,
tch, tch, corrected a grammatical mistake...sorry!
eric gisse
What, you think you are special because you failed to understand Einstein's
presentation of relativity?
Relativity is SO(3,1) + Maxwell's equations. Done. Not one crank on here has
actually sat down and said how their 'arguments' against Einstein's
derivation manage to hold in the group theory definition of SR which is the
one that is ACTUALLY USED.
Arindam Banerjee
No, I am special because I have proved that his position based upon
the correctness of the first postulate is wrong.
> Relativity is SO(3,1) + Maxwell's equations. Done.
Heh-heh, and What Rubbish. Relativity is based upon the invariance of
the speed of light, with respect to the emitter. Without this (the
first postulate) nothing further such as e=mcc, etc. can be derived.
This is evident in all the standard texts which you and your kind seem
happy to ignore, coming up with hand-waving one-liners instead.
Still, what else can be done, now that I have pinpointed what bullshit
the whole thing is?
To repeat myself for the n'th time:
1. The Earth moves around the Sun
2. Because of the above, the light has to travel a greater or lesser
distance than any measured distance. (Note: This is my original and
most subtle point, which outs the whole construction of relativity,
and had there been any ounce of fairness in the corrupt and degraded
western elite, I should long ago have got the Nobel Prize in Physics
for pointing this out)
3. Because nulls are found from the MMI experiment, showing equal time
of travel in all directions for the same *measured* scalar lengths
travelled (from above, the actual lengths travelled are different),
the velocity of light *has* to be correspondingly greater or smaller,
depending upon the direction of travel. Thus light going straight in
front has speed c+v, going back is c-v, going sideways at right angles
is c, and so on. Details are given in
http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm
4. Because of 3 (light has to be greater or lesser than c, depending
upon v the emitting source's velocity) the first postulate of Einstein
is wrong.
5. So, e=mcc and other weird stuff light matter being extremely short
or heavy at near-ligjht speeds, is total bunkum. The whole thing is
blown away, like a bad dream. All that modern physics now amounts to,
is an extreme embarrassment.
Note: The 5 points noted above are perfectly self-consistent. I do
expect a talented 13+ year old to understand all that, and so the
younger generation is my best hope. From the corrupt, motivated,
cowardly and degraded bunch of institutionalised creeps, I expect no
support.
Not one crank on here has
> actually sat down and said how their 'arguments' against Einstein's
> derivation manage to hold in the group theory definition of SR which is the
> one that is ACTUALLY USED.
Typical einsteinian gobbledygook. Anyone with the slightest knowledge
about the derivation of e=mcc can see through your deliberate
dishonesty.
Hoping (probably in vain) that you will grow up to be something
straight,
Arindam Banerjee
eric gisse
[...]
>> What, you think you are special because you failed to understand
>> Einstein's presentation of relativity?
>
> No, I am special because I have proved that his position based upon
> the correctness of the first postulate is wrong.
>
>> Relativity is SO(3,1) + Maxwell's equations. Done.
>
> Heh-heh, and What Rubbish. Relativity is based upon the invariance of
> the speed of light , with respect to the emitter. Without this (the
> first postulate) nothing further such as e=mcc, etc. can be derived.
SO(3,1) and Maxwell's equations. No principle of relativity needed. Oops.
Not that your argument regarding the PoR was correct in the first place, but
I find that this sidesteps your claims neatly.
[snip rest, entirely unread]
harald
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[..]
> > In your monograph, you make the following statement . . .
>
> > "For the analogy to hold, the river is the Earth moving with speed v
> > and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference.
>
> Didn't even Newton say that there is no absolute frame of reference
> and that all inertial frames of reference are equally "absolute"?
No, he did not. And neither did Lorentz. You can read what Newton
really said here:
http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm
(simply press "cancel" and scroll down to "Scholium")
Cheers,
Harald
Androcles
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:e797627d-c4f7-42c2...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
[..]
http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm
Cheers,
Harald
========================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
(simply press "cancel")
Jeers,
Androcles