On Thu, 20 May 2021 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
<banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

Ari mumbles:
It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of reference so
that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will be
sufficiently steady for Newton’s laws to serve well for every
practical purpose.

***********

Ari, stupid child Ari, how would you fix a frame of reference
to the "fixed stars".
"For every practical purpose"!
Ari, you are so stupid.

See, it is impossible.
No absolute coordinates, no absolute movement,
no absolute reference frame, everything is relative.

Navigating with the "fixed stars" will hit
with a precision of several miles in area.
See the German WW2 plans to bomb New York
with the A4 rocket.
GPS, which is sensitive to relativity,
will hit your toilet to the point.
Avoid your toilet, Ari, shit elsewhere.
w.

>
>It is not possible to provide the diagrams in a usenet post. Still, to a reasonably intelligent reader that is not such a problem Given the interest I will post the diagrams in my facebook page.
>
>
>
>Appendix A: The Grandest Bungle in Science
>
>Exposing the details underlying the construction of the wrong postulate that formed the foundation for Einstein’s theories of relativity; through a new finding and explanation of the extraordinary and subtle bungle in the analysis of the results from the Michelson-Morley Interferometry Experiment.
>
>(Most of the following article was posted to various Usenet groups in July 2005. It is now slightly updated. It is published in www.users.bigpond.int/adda1234/MMInt.htm )
>
>If we humans are to wander among the stars, in starships, we must first throw out certain ridiculously wrong notions about physics. The most startling of such nonsense relates to the theories of relativity, which reared up about a hundred years ago. One of the most outrageous consequences of this theory, as put forward by its adherents, is that the general public sincerely believes that travel is not possible beyond the speed of light. The public also believes that energy has to be caused by the destruction of mass, through Einstein’s famous formula, even though there is no experimental proof of this. Many wrong results and ideas, not necessarily scientific, have been drawn from the bungle I shall now describe. They shall be described in following articles. For the present, I am interested in pointing out the source of the error.
>
>The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, with its famously unexpected null results, is the sole source and also remains the core hard undeniable scientific evidence for the theories of relativity. One of the outstanding features about this experiment is that it is simple in concept, and has been done with painstaking efforts by many scientists.
>
>In this article, I will quote exhaustively from a textbook (details below) about the nature and philosophical background behind this experiment and after that will pinpoint the great blunder that was made in the analysis of the null results. I will show as clearly as can be, the nature of this blunder. I hope and believe that the intelligent reader will understand the subtlety underlying this very fine error, and grasp the enormous and highly positive consequences – with the re-invigoration of physics from the most fundamental level.
>
>Arindam Banerjee
>Melbourne, July 2005.
>
>Reference Textbook Details: “Physics of the Atom”, by M. Russell Wehr and James A. Richards, Jr. of the Department of Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology.
>Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. First Printed in 1964.
>About the book: “This book is neither a treatise nor a survey. It is a textbook which bridges the gap between classical physics and the present frontiers of physical investigation.” - extract from the Preface, by the writers. Philadelphia, Pa., July 1959.
>
>
>The basis of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity
>
>Quotations from Chapter 5 – Relativity (excerpts from the above reference “Physics of the Atom”, by M. Russell Wehr and James A. Richards, Jr. of the Department of Physics, Drexel Institute of Technology. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. First Printed in 1964.)
>
>From Pg111 ->
>5-1 Consider the interpretations of physical events that might be made by a person of high IQ born and brought up on a merry-go-round. He would experience a force somewhat like the force of gravity. It would be down at the centre of rotation, and, because of the centrifugal component, it would be directed down and out at points away from the centre.
>
>If our merry-go-round observer were to have the genius to devise a whole system of mechanics, the mechanics he would devise would not be the mechanics of Newton.
>
>For Newton’s laws to be valid precisely, we must observe events from what is called an inertial frame of a Galilean-Newtonian co-ordinate system. Such a system is one which has no acceleration. The whole structure of classical physics, then, is based on the assumption that we interpret all events as they would be interpreted by an observer whose viewpoint is an inertial reference frame.
>
>The genius of Newton is, in part, that although he never could step off the earth physically, he did step off it mentally. He interpreted events as though he had no acceleration. Because of this shift in his viewpoint, he was able to write his laws of mechanics in the particularly simple form that he did.
>But Newton never really knew where he projected himself to, and this worried him. He excluded the earth as a vantage point because the earth not only rotates but revolves around the sun. The sun offered possibilities, but even the sun moves and is probably accelerated through space. The stellar constellations were named by the ancients and the stability of their arrangement led to their being called the “fixed” stars. Yet it would be the strangest of co-incidences if the “fixed” stars really were fixed.
>
>It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of reference so that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will be sufficiently steady for Newton’s laws to serve well for every practical purpose. Such a vantage point is good enough for the practical men who want to fly aircraft, etc. But for a philosopher or physicist whose primary concern is the understanding of the nature of things and whose goal is the discovery of truth, uncertainty about the frame of reference represented a serious flaw in the logical structure of classical physics.
>
>5-2 The search for something more fixed than the stars went something like this. James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that electricity and light are related phenomena. Starting with known properties of electricity and magnetism, Maxwell derived equations which are identical in form to the equations which describe many wave phenomena. He could demonstrate, furthermore, that the velocity of the waves he discovered was the same as the velocity of light. He could derive many other properties of light, and it was soon accepted that he had put the wave theory of light on a firm foundation. In this theory, light is an electromagnetic wave motion.
>Every wave motion has something that “waves”. Surely, it was argued, light waves must involve the waving of something even in free space. No one knew what it was, but it was given the name “luminiferous ether”.
>
>Light passes through many kinds of materials. It passes through relatively heavy materials like glass, and it passes through the nearly perfect vacuum that must lie between the stars and the earth. Thus ether must permeate all of space.
>
>However fanciful it may seem to us, physicists felt that this ether might be just the thing to which to attach a Newtonian co-ordinate system. It was conceived that Newton’s laws would hold exactly for an observer moving without acceleration relative to the ether.
>
>If the ether is assumed to be at rest, then the interesting question is: How fast are we moving through the ether? Since all speculations about the ether stem from its properties as a medium for carrying light, an optical experiment is indicated. It is not hard to compute how sensitive the apparatus must be to measure the ether drift. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the sun has no ether drift, the velocity of the earth through the ether must be its orbital velocity. If the sun has an ether drift, then the drift of the earth will be even greater than its orbital velocity at some seasons. Knowing that the earth’s orbit is about 93 million miles, we can find the orbital velocity to be about 18.5 miles per second. By performing the experiment at the best season of the year, we know that we should be able to find an ether drift of at least 18.5 mi/sec. The velocity of light is 186,000 mi/sec. Great as our orbital velocity is, it is only .0001 times the velocity of light;
>so it is evident that a very sensitive instrument is required.
>
>5-3 A device of sufficient sensitivity was made and used in the United States by Michelson and Morley in 1887. The principle of their apparatus is brought out by the following analogy.
>5-4
>Suppose two equally fast swimmers undertake a race in a river between floats anchored to the river bed.
>
>(Arindam’s note: please note the expression – “floats anchored to the river bed” meaning that they are stuck to the ground, or to the inertial frame of reference. This is the source of all the bungling. Also let us mutter here, with Galileo, that the earth, it moves!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Two equal courses, each having a total length 2L, are laid out from the starting point, float A. One course is AD, parallel to the flow of the river relative to the earth, and the other AC, perpendicular to it. How will the times compare if each of the swimmers goes out and back on his course? Let the speed of each swimmer relative to the water be c, and let the water drift or velocity with respect to the earth be v. When the swimmer on the parallel course goes downstream, his velocity will add to that of the water, giving him a resultant velocity of (c+v) with respect to the earth. The time required for him to swim the distance L from A to D is L/(c+v). On his return, he must overcome the water drift. His net velocity then is (c-v), and his return time is L/(c-v). His total time is the sum of these two times. This is given by
>Time_parallel = L/(c+v) + L/(c-v) = 2Lc/(c*c – v*v).
>
>The other swimmer, going perpendicular to the water drift, spends the same time on each half of his trip, but he must head upstream if he is not to be carried away by the current. The component of his velocity that carries him toward his goal is the square root of (cc – vv) with respect to the earth. The total time for his trip also depends on the water drift, and is
>Time_perpendicular = 2L/(square root of (c*c – v*v)).
>To see how these two times compare, we divide the parallel course time, by the perpendicular course time, to get
>Time_parallel/Tim_ perpendicular = 1/(square root of (1 – v*v/c*c))
>
>In still water v=0, the ratio of the times is unity, and the race is a tie, as we would expect. In slowly moving water, the ratio is greater than unity and the swimmer on the perpendicular course wins; or put differently, if the swimmers are stroking in phase when they leave float A, they will be out of phase when they return to it. If the velocity of the river increases to nearly that of the swimmer, then the ratio tends towards infinity. If the river velocity exceeds the swimmer velocity, the entire analysis breaks down. The ratio becomes imaginary and both swimmers are swept off the course by the current. The point is that, by observing the race, the velocity of the water relative to the system of anchored floats can be measured.
>
>The optical equivalent of the above situation is to have a race between two light rays over identical courses, one parallel and one perpendicular to the ether drift. The instrument used, is called a Michelson interferometer, is shown schematically below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Light enters the apparatus from the source at the left. At A it strikes a glass mirror (angled at 45 deg) which has a half-silvered surface. Half the light is reflected up toward B and C, while the other half refracts at both surfaces of A and emerges parallel to the original beam and goes on to D. Both C and D are full-silvered, front-surface mirrors which turn their beams back towards A. The beam from C is partly reflected at A, but part of that beam refracts through A and goes to the observer. The beam from D partially refracts through A and is lost, but part of the beam is also reflected toward the observer. The plate of glass at B has the same thickness and inclination as that at A, so that the two light paths from source to observer pass through the same number of glass thicknesses. If the light from the slit did not diverge and remained very narrow in going through the apparatus, the observer would see a line of light. The brightness of this line would depend on the
>difference in the optical length* of the two light paths. (*Footnote: Two paths have the same optical length if light traverses both in the same time.)
>
>The optical lengths of the interferometer paths can be changed by changing their physical length, by changing the index of refraction of the region through which the light passes, or, if the swimming analogy applies, by moving the apparatus relative to the light-carrying medium.) If these (optical lengths) differed by any whole number of wavelengths of the light (including zero) the line would be bright. If the path differed by an odd number of half-wavelengths, then the line would be dark. Between these extremes every brightness gradation would be observed. In practice, light does diverge in the apparatus, and there are a great many slightly different paths being traversed simultaneously. Consequently the observer does not see but a multiplicity of lines. The loci of points where the paths differ by whole wavelengths are bright, and where the paths differ by an odd number of half-wavelengths there is darkness. Thus, as one path length is varied, the observer sees fringes,
>like the teeth of a comb, move across the field, rather than a single line becoming lighter and darker. It is fortunate that the optical system works as it does, since it is easier for the eye to detect differences in position than differences in intensity.
>
>The precision of this device is remarkable. If yellow light from Sodium is used, the wavelength is 5.893*10**-7 m. Moving the mirror C away from A one-half this distance will increase one path length by a whole wavelength and cause the pattern to move an amount equal to the separation of two adjacent dark lines. If we can estimate to hundredths of fringes, then the smallest detectable motion is only 2.9*10**-9 m.
>
>The similarity between the Michelson interferometer and the swimming race should be evident. Light corresponds to the swimmers and has the free-space velocity, c, with respect to the ether medium. The ether drift corresponds to the water current drift and has the velocity v with respect to the earth. Just as we could learn about the river flow by seeing the outcome of the swimmers’ race, so we wish to measure the ether drift by conducting a “light race” over equal paths parallel and perpendicular to the ether drift.
>
>Suppose that instead of taking the ratio of the times for the two paths of the river race we now take their difference; then
>t = time difference = 2Lc/(c*c-v*v) – 2L/square root of(c*c-v*v) = Lv*v/c*c*c after using the first two terms of the binomial expansion, to a good approximation if v<<c.
>
>In the interferometer, the time difference should appear as a fringe shift from the position the fringes would have if there were NO ether drift. The distance light moves in a time t is d=ct and if this distance represents n waves of wavelength W, then d=n*W. Therefore the fringe shift would be n=L*v*v/(W*c*c)
>Thus if the light race is carried out with speed of light c and wavelength W in an interferometer whose arms are of length L, one of which is parallel to the ether drift of velocity v, then the equation n=L*v*v/(W*c*c) gives the number of fringes that should be displaced because of the motion of the Earth through the ether compared with their positions if the earth were AT REST in the ether.
>
>5-4 The Michelson-Morley Experiment. The apparatus used was large and had its effective arm length increased to about 10 m by using additional mirrors to fold up the path. The entire apparatus was floated on mercury so that it could be rotated at constant speed without introducing strains that would deform the apparatus. ROTATION WAS NECESSARY in order to make the fringes shift, and by rotating through 90deg, first one arm and then the other could be made parallel to the drift, thereby doubling the fringe displacement given in the earlier equation. We can now estimate whether this instrument should be sensitive enough to detect the ether drift. Recall that at some time of the year the ether drift v was expected to be at least the orbital velocity of the earth, which is about .0001c. Thus we expect vv/cc to be at least 10**-8. Using light of wavelength 5*10**-7 m, the computed shift is n=0.4 fringe. Michelson and Morley estimated that they could detect a shift of 0.01 fringe.
>Sensitivity to spare!
>
>Measurements were made over an extended period of time at all seasons of the year, but no significant fringe shift was observed. Thinking that the earth might drag a little either along with it just as a boat carries a thin layer of water when it glides, Michelson and Morley took the entire apparatus to a mountain laboratory in search of a site which would project into the drifting ether. Again a diligent search failed to measure an ether drift. The experiment “failed”.
>
>Few experimental failures have been more stimulating than this. The negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment presented a challenge to explain its failure. Fitzgerald and Lorentz presented an ad hoc explanation. They pointed out that there might be an interaction between the ether and objects moving relative to it, such that the object became shorter in all its dimensions parallel to the relative velocity. Recall that in the flowing water analogy the ratio of the times of the swimmers was
>1/square-root of (1-vv/cc).
>
>If the route parallel to the flow had been shorter by this factor, then the ratio of the times would have been one and the race would have been a tie. A similar shortening of the parallel interferometer arm would account for the tie race Michelson and Morley always observed. The shortening could never be measured because any rule used to measure it would also be moving relative to the ether and would shorten also. Whether you accept the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis or not, the Michelson-Morley experiment indicates that all observers who measure the velocity of light will get the same result regardless of their own velocity through space.
>
>5-5 The constant velocity of light. Michelson and Morley found that the speed of the earth through space made no difference in the speed of light relative to them. The inference is clear: either that the earth moves in some way through ether space more slowly than it moves about the sun, or that ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THAT THEIR MOTION THROUGH SPACE MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THEM.
>
>The above inference was clear, at least to Einstein, who took the second alternative and made it a cornerstone of his special theory of relativity.
>
>Recall that the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out to measure the speed of the earth relative to the ether in order to establish a frame of reference relative to which Newton’s laws would hold. The failure of that experiment meant that the search for the fixed reference system must be made by another technique or abandoned altogether. Einstein explored the alternative of abandonment. He asked himself where he would stand (both literally and figuratively) if there were no “Newtonian” frame of reference. In this case there could be no absolute velocities, for every velocity would have to be measured relative to an origin that might and probably would be moving. Since there can be no preferred frame of reference, any frame must be as good as any other. To be universal, the laws of physics must be the same for all observers regardless of any motion they may have. Contrary to the first paragraphs of this chapter, one’s viewpoint MUST MAKE NO DIFFERENCE in one’s
>interpretation of events observed. If he is to be correct, the man born and brought up on a merry-go-round must deduce the same laws of physics as anyone else.
>
>**** End of exhaustive quotations from the textbook “Physics of the Atom”, from 5-1 to 5-5. The following sections, in brief, are about:
>
>5-6 General and Special theories of relativity.
>5-7 Classical Relativity
>5-8 Einsteinian Relativity. Quote: p123 The Michelson-Morley experiment was based on the assumption that since the classical velocity transformation is not invariant, it should be possible to measure the velocity of light in the ether relative to the earth. The experiment demonstrated that at least one velocity is invariant – the velocity of light.
> Einstein accepted this as a second fundamental assumption of this special theory of relativity. He postulated that:
>(2) ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY OF LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE.
>5-9 Relativistic space-time transformation equations.
>5-10 The relativistic velocity transformation
>5-11 Relativistic mass transformation
>5-12 Relativistic mass-energy equivalence
>5-13 The upper limit of velocity
>5-14 Examples of relativistic calculations
>5-15 Pair production
>5-16 Summary. We have seen how Einstein’s attention to a flaw in logic in Newtonian mechanics led him to consider the importance of an observer’s viewpoint. We have seen how the “failure” of the Michelson-Morley experiment led Einstein to assign special significance to the velocity of light in free space. We have seen how these considerations led to new concepts of space, time, mass, energy, and matter. When we realize that this was but one of Einstein’s achievements, we begin to sense the magnitude of his contribution to human thought.
>
>(End of quotes from the book “Physics of the Atom”.)
>
>
>Before I tackle the most fundamental issues relating to the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment - and yet again expose the bungle there, this time as clearly as possible - let me first, with sadness, reflect upon the horrendous consequences of this most pernicious theory of relativity.
>
>The deepest theories of physics are by no means complete in themselves, with some relevance to engineering; they have an intimate connection with individual and social life, by providing the practical basis for individual and group thought structures. By outing the need for any absolute frame of reference, Einstein’s relativity implicitly gave the license to all forms of individual and social thinking as equally valid. Thus, the thinking of the child molester or serial killer is as valid - from the extension of Einstein’s relativity to real life - as the thinking of the law enforcer or saint. There is no basis for differentiation between virtue and vice, between appearance and reality. All are equally valid in the same relativist currency. What is truth, or what is lie, becomes merely a matter of opinion announced and imposed by the loudest and the strongest of the time.
>
>Thus I see the stupidities, indecencies, and the extraordinary bloody-mindedness of the 20th century (a century of world wars, mass murders, extreme human inequalities; now leading to another dominated by selfishness, fear and greed) as an indirect yet inescapable consequence of Einstein’s theories, to some extent. Men can turn into self-important brats more easily, as their subconscious can now find good excuse, from the supposedly undeniable basics of physics, to disregard absolute checks upon behaviour. Einstein himself showed this, when he felt no constraints about writing a letter to the President of the USA urging the development of the atomic bomb; knowing fully well that its development would cause immense evil.
>
>For in a relativistic mental set-up, there can be no high and defined end to aspire unto; there can be no striving for the realization of absolute truths as fixed goals. There is, thus, only the scope of degeneration of whatever remaining values that were handed down by the non-relativists of earlier generations. This is painfully evident from the moral atrophy and social degeneration in modern societies; as also from those failed communist regimes where the whims of dictators became the highest values for all.
>
>The Great Bungle Now Explained (below)…
>
>It is evident from the above (extracts from the paras 5.1 to 5.5 of the textbook “Physics of the atom) that the entire basis of Einstein’s theory of relativity depends upon the null result of the Michelson –Morley interferometer experiment. This single fact is of vital importance. Equally important is that analogy given earlier, relating to the swimmer; swimming parallel to, and perpendicular to, the flowing river. For based upon this analogy, and this analogy alone, was the logic and also the mathematics for the analysis of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment developed.
>
>Let us see how far this analogy relates to the dynamics of light on this our moving earth. The diagram is redrawn below:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>We must note here, once again, that in this analogy A, C and D are fixed floats on the river bed. So, while the swimmer himself is affected by the flow of water, which gives him a higher or lower speed depending upon his direction, the floats are not affected at all. They are stuck to the river bed, and thus, have the same fixedness as the river bank.
>
>If this analogy (with respect to the motion of earth in ether) is correct, then the subsequent mathematics (that gives us the famous Lorentz transformation) is correct. But is this analogy correct?
>
>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.
>
>This implicit, totally arbitrary giving of a negative velocity to the float, equal to the velocity of the river flow, making it thus fixed with respect to the river bank, was completely missed by all the physicists, past and present. However, it is an absolute and undeniable fact that all the stationary objects on Earth have the same velocity v around the Sun, since the Earth is moving with that tangential speed around the Sun, according to Galileo and all later non-Aristotelian astronomers. There is no way it is possible to give any object on earth a negative velocity through some external ether hook-up process! All objects on Earth move at the same speed v. So we do not see objects from Earth being left behind, as it were, as we orbit the Sun! There is no way we can go to and from goal posts fixed in the ether reference! Nor can light travel to and from goal posts fixed in the ether reference!
>
>However, by fixing the floats on the river bed (which is the same reference as the river bank) all the physicists have implicitly assumed all the above. They have kept the floats fixed in the ether reference, while implicitly holding they are in the Earthly reference. This implies that the Earth is not moving at all! For if the Earth is moving, there could be no question of keeping the floats fixed to the river bed, for any valid analogy. They would have to drift with the velocity v with respect to the river bank.
>
>So the terrible mistake in this analogy was to keep the floats fixed to the river bed/ether, as opposed to letting it drift with the flow. The importance of this point simply cannot be overstated. When extended to the Michelson-Morley experimental set-up, this means – absolutely! - that all the mirrors stay fixed in etheric space while the earth moves away from them with velocity v! Ridiculous! But this is exactly what must happen when we extend the analogy of the swimmers, with the floats drifting but fixed to the river bed, to the apparatus in the so-vital Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment.
>
>Bodies, and light, can, have to, and do travel to and from “goal posts” fixed in the moving Earthly reference! There is simply no way in which the mirrors used in the Michelson-Morley experiment can be assumed to remain fixed in etheric space, while the Earth moves away from the set-up! If we admit this, then we must allow that the swimming analogy was flawed. The correct analogy would be to cut the floats loose, and let them drift with the velocity v.
>
>Now let us see the consequences of this change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The figure above shows the change of position of the float with time. As earlier there are two equal lengths L, marked out by the perpendicular course AC and the parallel course AD. (L=AC=AD). But now the floats are *not* fixed to the river bed, so they drift with velocity v. After time t, which is L/c, they move to the points A’, C’ and D’.
>
>t=L/c is the time the swimmer would have swum the lengths L in the absence of flow, that is, with v=0.
>
>So AA’, DD’ and CC’ are all of length v*t or v*L/c.
>
>Let us take the swimmer taking the route AD, parallel to the river bank. He starts from A, towards D. He has the speed (c+v) with respect to the river bank as he is swimming with the flow. Since the target float D is moving, the swimmer now has to travel a further distance DD’ to catch up. So, he has actually swum the distance AD’ instead of the earlier AD. AD’ = AD+DD’.
>
>So he has swum the length L+vL/c, with the speed c+v with respect to the fixed river banks. The time it would take him to do that will be (L+v*L/c)/(c+v).
>
>Now (L+v*L/c)/(c+v) = L(1+v/c)/(c+v) =L(1+v/c)/(c(1+v/c)) = L/c = t.
>
>Which means, no matter what the speed of the river, the swimmer would reach his goal float in the same time, provided the float was *not* tethered, freely drifting instead.
>
>Now let us consider the route AC, that is the one perpendicular to the river bank. The swimmer swims with velocity c in the perpendicular direction, but is pushed sideways as a result of the flow. He has an additional component of velocity thus, which pushes him sideways to the float which also has moved by the distance CC’ in the time t. The magnitude of the velocity of the swimmer, or the speed that is, on his way to C’ has to be square root of (c*c+v*v) with respect to the fixed river banks.
>The distance he covers is square root of (L*L + vt*vt) or square root of (L*L +(v*L/c)*(v*L/c)) or square root of (L*L*(1 + v*v/(c*c))). This distance thus comes to (L/c* square root of (c*c+v*v)). So the time taken to cover this distance will be distance/speed or (L/c*square root of (c*c+v*v))/square root of (c*c+v*v) which is L/c which again is t.
>
>So no matter whether the swimmer is swimming with the current or perpendicular to the current – if the floats are drifting, he will always cover the distances involved in exactly the same time just as if there was no flow in the water.
>
>For the sake of completion, we now consider the return journeys in both the parallel and perpendicular directions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Over the time 2t, the floats will have moved the distances AA’’, DD’’ and CC’’. The swimmer on the parallel path, having reached the float at D’, turns back towards the float and will meet it at the point A’’. The distance he now covers is D’A” which is A’D’-A’A” or L-vt or L-vL/c or L(1-v/c). The speed of the swimmer, with respect to the river bank, is (c-v) as he is going against the flow. So the time taken by the swimmer to reach the float on the return journey is L(1-v/c)/(c-v) or L(1-v/c)/(c(1-v/c)) = L/c = t.
>
>In the perpendicular path, the swimmer covers the distance C’A’’. Using the earlier analysis, we can once again find that the time it would take him to cover this distance would be t. (His speed would be the same as that going from A to C’; and the distance C’A’’ is also the same as AC’.)
>
>We thus see that no matter what angle the direction of travel, the time for travel for a source between two points in a medium which has no matter what velocity with respect to some fixed reference, is always the same. This goes totally against all modern physics, which is relativistic, and based upon the Lorentz transformation dealt with earlier.
>
>We can now see what really happened in the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment. The diagram is given again below, with some changes following our earlier discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Light going through A will be reflected by the mirror not at position D but at a further distance, at D’. The light will thus travel the path AD’ with the speed (c+v) which is the path AD+DD’; DD’ being the extra distance it will have to move, because the Earth is moving, and the mirror along with everything else is fixed on the Earth. Since the Earth is moving, with respect to the fixed ether, or just moving in space, the mirror D moves the extra distance DD’ with respect to ether (or external to earth frame of reference) by the time the light starting from A reaches it. Since the Earth is moving, the partially silvered mirror at A moves the distance AA’ when the light originating from A reaches D’. On the return path, the light will travel backwards from D’, towards the partially silvered mirror, with the speed (c-v) and will meet the partially silvered mirror at A’’. The partially silvered mirror will move the further distance A’A” by the time it takes the returning beam of
>light to meet it.
>
>Thus the formulation is exactly the same as it was in our case for the swimmer doing the parallel course. Both going and coming times will be exactly the same, that is t=L/c. Totally independent of the velocity of the source of light!
>
>In the perpendicular direction, the speed will be square root of (c*c+v*v), taking into account the swimming analogy. Because of its initial speed v, the light will have to move in on the moving mirror initially at C at an angle and with a higher magnitude of velocity – just as any stone thrown out parallel to and from a moving train, with respect to the ground. It will reach it at the position C’. This light will also have to travel the extra distance (square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c)) – L). As we have seen, the time to cover this will be L/c=t. Again, this time is totally independent of the velocity of the source of the light.
>
>From the above, it is clear that the return times are exactly the same no matter what the direction of the light source. Thus, the rotation of the whole apparatus – as was done – should not lead to any change in results at all, relating to the interferometer pattern. The null result is entirely to be expected. A wrong analogy had led to a wrong expectation. But with the correct analogy, the right results (the null results) were obtained.
>
>The consequences are drastic. The existence of ether as the medium of propagation of all electromagnetic waves (including light waves) is upheld. It had been wrongly demolished. We also find that the speed of light does change – as was initially supposed - with the speed of the light emitting source. If the speed of the light source is v, with respect to ether, then indeed the speed of light with respect to ether, when directed in the direction of v, is c+v. The null results of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment confirm both of the above. The speed of light thus cannot be constant, irrespective of the speed of the source.
>
>To confirm this, let us now do the above analysis again. This time, following Einstein’s Postulate (given below, and quoted from the text book), we take c to be always c and never anything more or less. Thus on the parallel path, the time taken to cover the distance AD’ will be (L+vL/c)/c and D’A” will take (L-vL/c)/c which is 2L/c or 2t. However, in the perpendicular path, the times will be square root of (L*L + v*v*L*L/(c*c))/c. That is, t*square root of (1+vv/cc) for the going path and the same for the return path, giving 2*t*square root of (1 + vv/cc). This is different from the parallel path, which is 2t. So, if the speed c of light is always constant, and independent of the speed of the light-emitting source, as per the current thinking, then the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment would have shown the fringes, with our corrected analysis! How ironic!
>
>All the Einsteinian constructions resulting from the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments are thus reduced to glaring nonsense. For Einstein’s first postulate, the basis behind all his theories of relativity, namely,
>
>ALL OBSERVERS MUST FIND THE SAME VALUE OF THE FREE-SPACE VELOCITY OF LIGHT REGARDLESS OF ANY MOTION THEY MAY HAVE
>
>as simply wrong. Wrong. Proved wrong, logically and mathematically, using the results of painstakingly done experiments.
>
>To make my point, further, with mathematics, for the general case of light proceeding at any angle (and not just the two angles, zero degrees and ninety degrees) let us consider the light source going at an angle (theta) with respect to the parallel path. We use the same notations (L,v,t,c) as used earlier.
>
>Then, the velocity of light will be in that direction:
>
>Square root of ((c*cos(theta)+v)^2 + (c*sin(theta)^2), by breaking up the speed c along two the x-y components, and adding the flow speed v to the parallel component. Note: the ^2 means squaring the bracketed expression ahead of it. After expansion, the above expression becomes square root of (c*c + v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta)).
>
>Within time t, the float/mirror will have moved the distance vt = vL/c along the parallel path. The distance the swimmer/light will have to move is thus:
>
>Square root of ((L*cos(theta)+v*L/c)^2 + (L*sin(theta)^2). Which after expansion becomes (L/c)*square root of (c*c + v*v +2v*c*cos(theta)).
>
>Dividing the distance traveled by the speed of travel, we get the time as L/c for the general case of light proceeding at any angle from the source as being t=L/c, completely independent of the velocity of v.
>
>So what is really happening? What are the so-called relativistic effects of Einstein, really? Really, what is happening is that between any two points on a body (like Earth) moving with a speed higher than zero with respect to a fixed frame of reference; the actual distance traveled by a ray of light, from one point to the other, is usually different from the actual measured distance. So, if we mark out two points on Earth, and measure the distance between them carefully, then, the ray of light will always move a distance more or less than the marked distance, except for just one particular angle. This angle can be found easily from the above formula for the actual length traveled, thus by putting the expression
>
>v*v + 2v*c*cos(theta) = 0;
>
>or theta = inverse of cos(-v/(2*c)).
>
>Debunking the sole experimental “Proof” of General Relativity
>
>To come to the General Theory of Relativity now – that was apparently “proved” during a total eclipse of the sun. The positions of the stars around the sun, then became visible. Their measured positions differed from the estimated positions by an amount, it is claimed, that was predicted by the General Theory. Which indicated that the Sun acted as a gravitational lens, and bent the light waves, so that the stars appeared to be in different positions from what is estimated from nightly observations (when there is no Sun around to act as a gravitational lens). That the Sun, or for that matter any mass, acts as a gravitational lens to bend light, comes as a consequence of the General Theory.
>
>Let us now consider a more mundane explanation for this phenomenon. We all know that light bends (refracts) when going from a lighter to a denser medium. Now, around the sun there is a lot of gaseous matter, and the density thus should be greater than vacuum. So light from the stars must naturally bend around periphery of the sun – one can only expect the stars to be in a different position during a solar eclipse. Nothing really remarkable here!
>
>
>

On Friday, 21 May 2021 at 09:12:14 UTC+2, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2021 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> <banerjee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ari mumbles:
> It would seem that, however, that if we locate a frame of reference so
> that it is fixed relative to the stars, this vantage point will be
> sufficiently steady for Newton’s laws to serve well for every
> practical purpose.
>
> ***********
>
> Ari, stupid child Ari, how would you fix a frame of reference
> to the "fixed stars".
> "For every practical purpose"!
> Ari, you are so stupid.
>
>
> See, it is impossible.
> No absolute coordinates, no absolute movement,
> no absolute reference frame, everything is relative.

Wabi, stupid lying fanatic child Wabi, it's only impossible
for such a mindless moron like you. German WW2 plans
were crafted 75 years ago - had they heard of
pulsars? And, as for GPS, if it treated seriously your
moronic ideology and your bunch of idiots screaming
that " we are FORCED to synchronize them [clocks]
such that inertia and space are isotropic" - it could
never work.

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> Ari, stupid child Ari, how would you fix a frame of reference to the
> "fixed stars". "For every practical purpose"! Ari, you are so stupid.

almost can't even believe it, but as a prof, I tell you it is possible.
At least passive-tags <10m 128 KHz are there for decades now.

However now, passive-tags 5G distributed through "vaccines". The power is
there, from the nearby 5G beacons antennas, should suffices.

👀 The Jabbed are being TRACKED!!!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/myzGjOMtzL3Z/

Seems legit to me. A MCU (microprocessor) and a few kilobytes of memory
encapsulates into a couple of 100s um nowadays. The body is the antenna.

Article;New Atlas“World's smallest single-chip system can be injected into
the body”The world's smallest single-chip system, sits on the tip of a
hypodermic needle.Fkn insane!!

insane aint it , heres another guys , Bluetooth devices are picking him up
tagged as ASTRA-ZENECA. https://www.bitchute.com/video/oYIUvgiAhCgt/