Hundreds of SR tests - and all wrong.

From: Arindam Banerjee (adda1234_at_bigpond.com)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: 31 Jan 2005 18:26:17 -0800

Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > You are being evasive, Marko. You said you believed in e=mcc,
> > and I simply asked why. If you say you believe in it because
> > Mike Morris does, and you believe Mike Morris because he is a
> > PhD in physics, then there is no further argument. And Mike
> > Morris believes in it because Hawking does, and Hawking
> > does because Einstein did, and so on.
>
> "There are literally hundreds of experiments that have tested SR,
> with an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between
> theory and experiment is excellent."
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
>
> How theological! There are actually millions of priests, of various
> religions, saying just that.
>
> Actually, if all the scientists make the same basic mistake which I
> pointed out relating to the Michelson Morley interferometry experiment
> (mainly assuming implicitly the earth is not moving when actually it
> is) then they are *all* wrong, no matter how many times they do the
> experiment.
>
> Please try to read what I am saying, instead of trying to shut me up
> by dogma and media hyperbole. If you have any integrity whatsoever as
> a free thinker, that is.

Who said I was trying to "shut you up"?

AB: I did. You do not listen to what I say, you do not discuss
anything I write, but give the impression that I must be wrong by
saying that SR had been proved by others. That means, whatever I say
must be wrong, because esteemed others have proved that it is right.
This is as effective a way of shutting one up, as any. Had it not
been for the freedom of Usenet, which gives everyone a chance to make
his thoughts known, new ideas would always be suppressed or
appropriated by the vested interests.

I gave you a link to
a website which describes the hundreds of experimental tests
of the special theory of relativity (which includes e=mc^2).

AB: Not hundreds. After seeing the site you posted about - thanks! -
, I find that they have done the very same Michelson Morley
interferometry experiment hundreds of times in different ways and got
the same result. I have no doubt that the experiments were well done.
 It is just that they have formed a priori the notion that SR must be
right, and if the data fits somehow, then SR is right. However, when
one looks at what has actually been done with a broader perspective,
as I did - you may find out my writings on this, posted in rab about
two years ago - we can come up with entirely different conclusions.
Basically, they simply forgot to take into account that the earth is
actually moving, and thus, following any stream of light sent in the
forward direction. When this basic fact, proven by Galileo centuries
ago at great cost to him, then the results will be consistent with the
existence of ether, and not surprising at all. Similarly, the
so-called proof of the general relativity nonsense with the eclipse of
the sun is probably the greatest hoax in science that has to be
unmasked. As you will know, the position of the stars changed as
predicted (the sun acted as a gravitational lens) with respect to the
no-sun state at night. So (heh-heh) space actually bent (warped is
the sci-fi term) because of the sun's mass. And because it actually
bent, the stars were angularly shifted, as the sun acted as a
"gravitational lens". And general relativity was also "proved". But
what is the truth? The truth is that matter extends a great distance
around the sun - the eclipse of the sun does not eclipse the matter
around the sun which has a greater than 1 refractive index. So, the
light from the stars, passing through the denser than space medium
outside the sun, *MUST* bend, and thus all the stars will be angularly
shifted. In short, the sun must certainly act as an *optical* lens
during the eclipse.

Marko: It's obvious from your comment "if all the scientists make the
same basic mistake which I pointed out relating to the
Michelson Morley interferometry experiment (mainly assuming
implicitly the earth is not moving when actually it is)"
that you've never read about the experimental tests of the
theory of relativity. If you had, you would know they are not
all like the Michelson Morley experiment. Now who is being
dogmatic here?

AB: The MM experiment was the basis for acceptance of the Lorentz
transformation, which used in the simple formulas for momentum gave
e=mcc. So, it is completely critical, and that was my point.
However, in the early part of the 20th century, Einstein's ideas were
treated with the scorn they deserved. It was the phenomenon of
radioactivity that changed perspectives - how was the energy
generated, it violated the conservation laws. So, they had to invent
a new law of conservation of mass and energy, using the convenient
e=mcc. Also, this explained happily the energy of the sun - matter
was continuously getting transferred to energy following e=mcc. It
was all quite pat. The final seal of approval came with the killing
of 100,000+ innocents with the atom bomb - surely so much energy could
come only from the theoretical formula, e=mcc? The public's mind was
now fully formed, and hordes of science fiction writers had a field
day. Further solidifying the nonsense. Anybody who disbelieved in
e=mcc was a fool - further, he must be a Nazi (the Jews of Usenet made
the point very clear to me when I dared to raise this topic) and his
entire career had to be wiped out. But, all lies run their course. I
have come up with an entirely new formula that explains the energy of
the sun, the energy from radioactivity (natural processes that are
acclerated, and the energy comes from high speed collisions that add
up in a short space creating enormous energy, but without any
diminishing of matter) - and all that by not even bothering about
Einstein, but by building upon Newton, and going primarily against
such established notions as entropy and the law of conservation of
energy (which I reduce to a special case where velocity addition
effects are not involved).
You write about "other experiments" other than MM. I could not find
any described to any acceptable level of detail, that could merit my
consideration. The highly accepted MM experiment had been described
in good detail in some websites, and also physics texts. And so, it
was a good target to begin with. Not that I relish the role of
executioner, even of the disastrous garbage-pedlars who have not
delivered free energy from fusion as promised via e=mcc and so-called
hydrogen bombs decades ago. But they should re-examine their basis,
that is what research is all about - search *again*!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... I am referring to an historic fact, Einstein use ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: black holes made of light?
    ... then that container ought to show an increased effective gravitational ... This is why your relativity book is worthless. ... Energy gravitates. ... E=mc^2 doesn't have to be derived assuming the absence of gravitation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Einsteins Sep27 1905 paper
    ... What energy is refering Einstein here? ... The name "Special Relativity" was stated ... exclusion, gravity, electricity or any other. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... measuring rest mass its potential energy. ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Potential energy in Einsteins 1905 Relativity
    ... relationship from the Principle of Relativity (PoR, ... Jun 30 paper) and the Principle of Energy (PoE, ... measuring rest mass its potential energy. ... inaplicability of potential energy in relativity is that you don't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading