Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <gKi38RIsdS08DkF8xTVFgIV24sM@jntp>
JNTP-Route: news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: [SR] Dismaying intellectual =?UTF-8?Q?desert=3F=20?=
References: <XLDLGsv1hABGotvAZBescT5TXe8@jntp> <55-SxjGonLyApdY_nF21LJtAsjc@jntp> <yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
JNTP-HashClient: z3xWX_e2JNdU5BEDckVQ6KrTaLw
JNTP-ThreadID: xoYxbPntQXYAIaYV44V6gWoUBMk
JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 4@news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=gKi38RIsdS08DkF8xTVFgIV24sM@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 24 12:08:11 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="601f4a4a60dc6043f0c3ab83656fd85fb6bc327d"; logging-data="2024-04-02T12:08:11Z/8802661"; posting-account="219@news2.nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com>
Bytes: 5980
Lines: 107

Le 02/04/2024 à 20:39, Richard Hachel a écrit :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 02:50, Arindam Banerjee a écrit :
>> Le 30/03/2024 à 00:25, Richard Hachel a écrit :
>>> For a long time now, I have provided proof that the theory of relativity, at 
>>> least as taught today, was incorrect.
>> 
>> It is rubbish.
>> 
>>> I was then accused, for ideological convenience, of being anti-relativist, which 
>>> is false. I never said anywhere that the theory of relativity was false, I simply 
>>> said, and tenaciously, that it was incorrect, which is far from being the same 
>>> thing.
>> 
>> No, it is not incorrect.  It is rubbish.  For light speed varies with the speed 
>> of the emitter, as shown by the correct understanding of the MMI expt results on 
>> one hand; and there is violation of inertia with the Lorenz force not having equal 
>> and opposite reaction. With inertia violated, with my railgun experiments, the 
>> essential basis for Eisntein's 1905 paper gets outed.
> 
> 
> I am surprised that you want to refute things that are so obvious, and 
> especially by giving false arguments.

It is obvious from the MM experiment that the speed of light changes with 
the speed of the emitter.
I found the bungle made of the analysis of the experiments back in 2005.
Basically, they ignored the fact that the equipment moves along with the 
Earth, as it is on the Earth.
That way, the distances travelled by the light in the two directions are 
the same, and so there is the null result. One can check out the detailed 
paper, will repost if necessary.
That the light speed changes is most obvious with the Doppler effect, 
where frequency changes with the velocity of the emitter.

Thus if c(V)=c+V
f = (c+V)/wavelength.
or f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
or f(rest) + del f = c/wavelength + V/wavelength
which gives
del f = V/wavelength

See, when we have velocity of sound/light/water changing with the velocity 
of the emitter, then there is no need to twist up the wavelength which 
remains the same (as it has to, no way it can get twisted up, it only 
moves past faster or slower with more or less speed of the emitter).


When v is positive, we get higher f, as is evidenced.
When v is negative, we get lower f.
So most obviously the speed of light changes with that of the emitter of 
light.
Which throws out the first postulate of SR and so the whole thing comes 
crashing down.
As I have been pointing out since 2005.

> It is not possible that the speed of light can be changed by the speed of the 
> source because the speed of light in a frame of reference is measured with TWO 
> watches, and the two watches that measure it are in the receiver's frame of 
> reference .

Makes no sense, above. For such an important point, a lot of effort must 
be made to make sense.

The speed of light depends upon the quality of the medium, and that is 
found from the electromagnetic travelling wave formulations, depending 
upon magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity.  That the values 
from there matched with experimental results is one of the greatest 
triumphs of theoretical and experimental physics.  After that, the reality 
of electromagnetic waves became known, and put to practical use.

Light is kinetic in quality, just like throwing an object from a moving 
platform. Wave motion is an essentially kinetic exercise. Just look at the 
water wave. When a duck flaps the still water, the waves move faster in 
the direction of the force applied. For the source pushes the medium there 
with extra velocity.

> This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take into 
> account to produce this speed.

Again, this makes no sense.
The speed of the source relates to frequency shift, so we can find how 
fast objects are moving.

> On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the speed of 
> the wave, 

Which is wrong, of course, see above.  
The speed of the source increases or decreases the speed of the wave.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

it is important to know that it has an importance on the wavelength and 
the energy of the photon.
> 
>  λ'=λ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosα.Vo/c)   
>  λ'=λ.(1-cosα'.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>  λ'=λ.(1+cosµ.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
> 
>  hυ'=hυ.(1+cosα.Vo/c)/sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)
>  hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1-cosα'.Vo/c)
>  hυ'=hυ.sqrt(1-Vo²/c²)/(1+cosµ.Vo/c)
> 
> Thank you for listening.
> 
> R.H.