Masanov

I changed, naming png alike. Why can't you download wmf separately? I would not like to violate dates my article was first issued on. ------- Anybody, who knows a good publishing house, or journalists, eager to bite the news?

I looked into Longman, yes it's old usage. In Hornby obsolescence is not mentioned. Thank you, and thank you, Mart, for support, too. Misapplication, ... he used to evaluate everything without thorough analysis. And the reason for that is his mood, I think. We know relativity only when the light impulse is moving 90 degrees to the spaceship's movement, and to imagine three light pulses between Einstein mirrors and apply in all these 3 cases Einstein's postulates, for him is mundane. He would have received 3 different times (see above, I explained many times) in one spaceship, which is a real paradox, sensational, not that mundane, and promises great discussions. Maybe you suggest me how to convince these guys. To suggest EXCEL table, with the collumns to fill in the cells step by step as the theory of relativity is being explained. I am lost in doubts of what to do next. When I reveal simple mistakes to the public, which is entertaining, I simplify lifes, try to gain contacts ..., as anybody would do in my place in this situation, they treat my discussions as avatarism, martyrism, dullsville, and the latest hit is pseudo science. They are so keen on relativity that would rather fly into outer space for good. If I was a flight organizer, I would be quite happy to give them life time supply of food. In the film RAT RACE there was a nice episode "buy the squirrel". I propose to apply postulates to three pulses of light moving along their relative distances to the spaceship and receive three different times, and understand how dangerous is to mistrust Newton.

Mundane because of yours phantasy misapplication.

The article proves that MM experiment has nothing to do with checking the Newton's view on absolute space and time. To analize whether light spreads relatively to the moving source of light with relative speed one can reconstruct the experiment and redo it. http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Michelson and Morley.htm Though it is quite possible that light spreads relatively to the moving source of light with absolute speed, but nevertheless it is useful to check it. As I see it, the concept of "the ether wind" is not the "Newton's wind", that is the shift of light due to the movement of the source to the direction, from which this source moves. An the MM experiment was not oriented to check this Newton wind possible phenomenon.

You said: relative speed should be C emission of pulses, yes; and the circle is like finish line not a light. Three observers, looking through viewports. [study pls the picture (paramount quality is for later times)] http:\\http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/7 Black observer can understand the theory of relativity, because the light pulse which he sees moves perpendicular to the direction of the spaceship's movement. His time is T90= [imath] \sqrt{1-(\frac{v90^o}{c})^2} [/imath], or T sin alpha. Grey observers do not see through their portholes this perpendicular direction pulse and the theory of relativity should be explained to them using some other pulses and alpha angles, that is why their times should be different from T90, that is Tbeta2=T90(alpha2)/sin beta2, and Tbeta3= T90(alpha3)/sin beta3. So, Einstein's relative time in the spaceship depends upon positions of the observers in this spaceship, and what is really stunning upon the turn of their head, or eyes! You [are an observer] turn your eyes to the right - you have time B, to the left - time A, turn backwards - time C. This discovery of new times' formulas is sensational and must not be hushed down.

Why, I am in complience with Isaac Newton view on space and time, it's not that dangerous. I applied postulates as was suggested to three pulses of light, proving there should be 3 different times for one observer of these three pulses... I did never state that when trying to catch the light pulse I gonna change absolute speed of this pulse and make it bigger. You confuse it with relative speed... So if Einstein had proposed this experiment with 3 pulses, he would have applied his postulates and received 3 times. Maybe he knew this case and was worrying about possible scandals, nevertheless, only now we have come to this discussion. And it is not a pseudo science, when you try resurrect Newton's view on absolute space and time. In any case a discovery of something new from the old past cannot bring any harm. Anytime, write to me rainbow-calendar@hotmail.ru I appreciate your reaction, it was good. Nice.

It refers to the famous Einstein experiment with parallel mirrors, where these mirrors have to move c* cos alpha to catch the light pulse, that was shot outside the spaceship by someone not moving with the speed of this spaceship (and mirrors). We catch light pulse and it moves along perpendicular line up and down, up and down, ... In the long run Einstein makes out this expression [imath]\sqrt{1-(\frac{v90^o}{c})^2}[/imath]which really is sin alpha. Other pulses that cannot be caught strictly along perpendicular line (acc. to Tom) also have this time T*sin alpha as a requirement. Not T* sin alpha/sin beta, but without this [imath]sin{\beta}[/imath] amendment. And this is a requirement!! Discussed above times beta1, beta2, beta3 are not required, though they are possible. The theory of relativity never stated her requirements, only postulates. I would like all of you to return to the discussion of three separate times for 3 light impulses at angles beta1, beta2, beta3 to one observer, who moves in the spaceship. Distance to pulse1 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta1, to pulse2 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta2, to pulse3 is ct*sin alpha/sin beta3. In acc. with postulates the times along these 3 distances should be different. (Acc. to Tom) sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3, as a requirement to use Maxwell's "sin alpha" in all directions. Who invented this reqirement? To state sin beta1=sin beta2 = sin beta3 is wrong. http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/3

illustration in the following picture: Einstein experiment with a light pulse that moves at an angle alpha... . http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/4 In Einstein experiment the spaceship moves with the speed c*cos aplha. And the light pulse, that was shot ouside the spaceship at an angle alpha to the direction the spaceship moves, moves in the spaceship up a perpendicular line [imath](beta=90^o)[/imath]. If in the expression [imath]\sqrt {1 - \frac {v90^2}{c^2}} [/imath]we change V90 for c*cos aplha we receive: [imath]\sqrt {\frac{c^2 - (c cos{\alpha})^2}{c^2}};[/imath] [imath]\sqrt {\frac{c^2 (1 - (cos{\alpha})^2)}{c^2}}[/imath] [imath]\sqrt {\frac{1 - (cos {\alpha})^2}{...}}[/imath] [imath]\sqrt {\frac{({\sin{\alpha}})^2}{...}}[/imath], which is sin {\alpha}. t relative/t absolute =[imath]sin{\alpha}[/imath] !!!! If we leave this speed c*cos alpha unchanged, but from the very beginning shoot the pulse at another angle, we would have another time. And Tom Mattson said, that this Maxwell expression "sin alpha" should be used at any direction. Would you pls show me the reference book where this was stated, or where the experiment with three light pulses and three angles beta was already discussed. In postulates and in the theory of relativity it was never stated that Maxwell "sin alpha" should be used without proofs and in all directions (yes, it was once mentioned without proofs whith relativity of distances, but with parallel mirrors it was clear that the spaceship speed was c*cos alpha and Maxwell expression there was sin alpha).

Now, it's a relief to the eye.

I worked the whole day, now here's the reference to the article. Anyway, it looks as if it is published. http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Einstein Relativity Refutation (2).htm shortly: If you move after light impulse with the speed c/2, you approach it with the speed c/2, and relative speed is c/2 also. In the same way, if someone moves after the light impulse at an angle alpha with the speed [c*cos alpha], you receive the relative speed [c*sin alpha]. If someone denies relative speed, than v should be zero. By the way I expect a good friendly guy to join soon my thread, I expect to appear between his reviews, not between attacks.

I 'm afraid Tom quitted and went to other pages, expressing no interests. I explaned what he had pointed, though it was difficult to understand his demands. Maybe he once again after careful consideration expresses his points. I will copy them and show my steps between his lines. Tomorrow I will try copy his old opinion, but opinions change, you know.

I think that you knew Einstein theory's postulates from yesterday. I expect advanced scientists to visit my thread, I will notice administator about your abuse. Or else, let us agree, that you say no more than 3 sentences and do not waste my time. By the way, your original place is "Earth" and your emblem is a kid, are you kidding? I expect only advanced scientists to enter my thread. Answer only the 2 question!!!In short!!! the first one is not for you, pls understand me. 1 (Only for advanced scientists). There's no need for absolute speed in the formula [imath]\frac{T90^o}{Tabsolute}=sin{\alpha}[/imath]. If you know the angle ALPHA, upon which the light impulse was shot, you don't even have to know the observer's speed [imath]V90^o[/imath], which is [cos alpha*c] when beta=90 degrees, and even know the meaning of c. All you have to know is the time, observed outside the spaceship, in which the observer moves. 2 (For beginners).You did not answer about APPROACH to the light impulse. Is it possible to approach light impulse, which moves at a speed [c]? You say No, or Yes, pls answer in short. If not possible, then there's no relative speed in your thinking, and V90 in the formula [imath]\frac{T90^o}{Tabsolute}=sin{\alpha}=\sqrt {1-v90^2/c^2}[/imath] must be 0. You do not allow the spaceship to move in the direction of the light pulse. 3. (For advanced scientists). To say relative speed is not possible is the same as to say the speed is always equal to absolute c. With such rules, you cannot approach the light pulse if your relative speed is impossible, so V90=0, and the expression [imath]\sqrt {1-v90^2/c^2}[/imath] is 1, so t90/t=1. No twins paradox. To have twins paradox, one has to admit relative speed of light. This proves that in Einstein formula [imath]\sqrt {1-v90^2/c^2}[/imath] expression is [sinalpha] or [relative speed/absolute speed], and this is a very advanced discovery.

Do you agree that the time is [t*sin alpha/sin beta] in the experiment proposed for discussion, do you agree that expression\sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{90^o}}{c})^2} is sin alpha. If not, pls express you thoughts using proofs. See my e-mail from yesterday 8.02 PM.

ABOUT RELATIVE SPEED OF LIGHT. If you chase the light pulse and catch it up with, its relative speed becomes 0. If you say, that the speed of light is always absolute and the light pulse cannot be reached, or even be close to, then you deny any movement to the light pulse, and even more: you deny paradox of twins, which needs the movement close to light speed, and deny relativity of time. So, in the theory itself there's no contradiction between relative time and relative speed. 1)somebody outside the spaceship can shoot the light pulse close to the direction where the spaceship moves at an angle alpha [close to 0] and this spaceship can move with the speed c*cosalpha to catch this pulse up with. This pulse being caught up with, its relative speed is 0. [time cannot be close to 0!] 2)reduce the size of parallel mirrors to microscopic dimensions, leave them with the caught up light pulse in your apartment and ride away from it at a velocity 10 km per hour. The relative speed of the pulse (left in the appartment) would be 10 km per hour. If you would not leave the appartment, then the relative speed is 0, not time? So [imath] t90/t = [c90/c=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{90^o}}{c})^2}] [/imath] is not a contradiction in the theory itself: relative speed and relative time together. Personally I see many contraditions in the theory of relativity. I explained Tom Mattson the origin of the formula and he in return has to agree or disagree with the experiment proposed. The Postulates are not only for 90 degrees relative distance to the light pulse, and if you explain relativity on 3 light impulses between parallel mirrors, you should use three different relative distances and different formulas. By the way, another contradiction is time 0, when the light pulse is caught up with in case no.1 (here above).

Answering your questions WHAT IS RELATIVE SPEED and ORIGIN OF THE FORMULA sin alpha/sin beta: 3 light pulses could be shot outside moving spaceship at angles alpha1 alpha2 and alpha3 (at a direction the spaceship moves). In the spaceship these three pulses will be viewed at angles beta1 beta2 and beta3 by one person. Relatively to this person the pulses will go relative distances, namely c sin alpha1/sin beta1 t , c sin alpha2/sin beta2 t , c sin alpha3/sin beta3 t , For further explanation I use bracket. We can say, that pulses move relatively to the person with relative speeds (shown in brackets): [c sin alpha1/sin beta1] t , [c sin alpha2/sin beta2] t , [c sin alpha3/sin beta3] t , or we can say that these relative distances, these pulses fly at relative times (shown in brackets): c [sin alpha1/sin beta1 t] , c [sin alpha2/sin beta2 t], c [sin alpha3/sin beta3 t]. Only for one pulse that move at an angle beta=90, Einstein thought a theory. So Einstein formula of time is a simple equation [when sin beta=1]: [imath] (\frac{[c sin{\alpha}] t}{[c] t })=(\frac{c [sin{\alpha} t]}{c [t]}) [/imath] From this formula relative time is: [imath] [t sin{\alpha}] =(\frac{[c sin{\alpha}] t c [t]}{[c] t c}) [/imath] Sin alpha when beta=90 is a well known phrase [imath] \sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{90^o}}{c})^2} [/imath], or [imath] \sqrt{(\frac{(c^2-v^2)}{c^2})} [/imath], or [imath] \sqrt{(\frac{([c*sin{\alpha}]^2)}{c^2})} [/imath] , or simply [c sin alpha]/c. So: [imath] [t sin {\alpha}] = (\frac{sin{\alpha} [t]}{...})=[t] [c sin{\alpha}]/c. [/imath] To know relative time we first should know [c sin alpha]/c, not necessarily the speed of the spaceship! This means if we experiment with more then one apha angle, use more pulses, we come to more times in one spaceship. [More brainstraining]. When you say relative speed of light it looks naiive, but when you say relative time, it looks fashionable and gives brainstraining. Though relative speed and relative time deal with the same notion - relative distance (their common notion). 2. You asked the second question: where I got sin alpha/sin beta. If we follow pulse of light along perpendicular line to the movement of the spaceship, this pulse goes the distance [ct sin alpha]. If the angle beta will not be 90 and less than that, we will see the pulse at the angle beta <>90 degrees and the distance along the beta line is [ct sin alpha]/sin beta. Relative speed in this formula is (shown in brackets): [c sin alpha/sin beta] t Relative time in this formula is (shown in brakets): c [sin alpha/sin beta t] I ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS about relative speed of light, and about my formula origin. In my site-page I wanted to point that brackets in the theory of relativity move: Original position is simple [t sin alpha c]. Time equation is: [t sin alpha] = [t] [c sin alpha]/c. As you can see here on the left side of this Einstein's time equation the brackets seesaw to the notion "relative time", On the right side brackets seesaw to the notion "relative speed of light pulse", because in the formula the meaning of [imath] \sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{90^o}}{c})^2} [/imath]is [c sin alpha]/c.

In times's formula we always talk about relative speed of light pulse (to moving objects), [simply Einstein always changes relative speed to absolute]. T90/T = C90/C=[imath] {\sqrt{1-(\frac{v_{90^o}}{c})^2} [/imath], was twice mentioned. If we have 10 light pulses with their different relative speeds to a certain spaceship, he would change these speeds to one absolute and say, Hur, Now we have 10 different times in one spaceship!!!

How would Einstein giggle if imagined 3 light pulses in his papallel mirrors, providing the pulses were shot at different angles to the direction you move. With you speed C*cos alpha you will see only one pulse perpendicular to your movement, other pulses will have another times. The more pulses you experiment with, the more times you receive.

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation.htm Here is the quick answer why time cannot be relative. Refutation of the theory of relativity. Masanov Konstantin.

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation.htm PLS check my short article, proving why time formula is wrong.

http://www.rainbow-calendar.hotmail.ru/Relativity_Refutation.htm To refute A.Einstein and do not break brains is the best solution.