Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@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>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
JNTP-HashClient: s4nKXz_nEfl3tPnfKVk0BezYKUM
JNTP-ThreadID: xoYxbPntQXYAIaYV44V6gWoUBMk
JNTP-ReferenceUserID: 219@news2.nemoweb.net
JNTP-Uri: http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/0.999a
JNTP-OriginServer: news2.nemoweb.net
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 24 09:39:27 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: news2.nemoweb.net; posting-host="e8cbf2474b472b9bb79db3dccb6a856bc1d05409"; logging-data="2024-04-02T09:39:27Z/8802520"; posting-account="4@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: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
Bytes: 3410
Lines: 45

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 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 .
This de facto makes the speed of the source completely useless to take 
into account to produce this speed.
On the other hand, if the speed of the source has no importance on the 
speed of the wave, 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. 

-- 
Ce message a été posté avec Nemo: <http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=yicmqV-LmSkUGZMrLIlAvr5aftM@jntp>