Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427824
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory |
| Date | 2017-08-09 03:18 +0000 |
| Organization | The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 |
| Message-ID | <omduuc$gu8$2@pcls7.std.com> (permalink) |
| References | <olj91f$n58$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oljecn$c03$4@pcls7.std.com> <olk98c$he$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 30/07/17 11:56, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >> ><garbage nipped > light speed is the same irrespective of >>> observer speed. >> >>> P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions. >> >> No, Ralph, it is a statement of observation. Every attempt at measuring >> the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the >> motion of the source or observer. >The fact tghat TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found >to always have hte same value c is proof that light is balloistic. No,Ralph, the fact that TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found to always has the value of c, plus the fact that it has been proven that the speed of light is isotropic, disproves DirtyBaThWater. Actually TWLS being constant is enough to disprove ballistic light, Ralph. >>> Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added >>> that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri >>> Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a >>> medium did exist. >>> Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any >>> observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether >> >> No, Ralph. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated >> that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make >> up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this >> "personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up. >You obviously know nothing about SR. It is you who knows nothing about SR, Ralph. If you did, you wouldn't say the stupid things you do, Ralph. >>> Einstein's version of aether theory >> >> Again Ralph, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous, >> you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't >> have it both ways, Ralph. >> >>> also lacked a mechanism that would >>> bring about light speed unification from all sources. >> >> Because there was no need for any "unification", Ralph. >Then how did Einstein's postulate unify all light speeds? Did he hire >Paul Andersen's famous fairies to do the jobl? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that was a really stupid thing to say, even for you. I just got through telling you there was simply no need to "unify" light speed since the speed of light is always c, Ralph! And you ask again how does Einstein do something that never needed to be done?!?!?!?!? >>> What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of >>> as is the fact that most of space is >>> sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically, >>> as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis. >> >> Now Ralph, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that >> light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double >> images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Ralph. >> As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images >> from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see. >Double images are not expected. Of course they are expected, Ralph! If the speed of light was variable, then faster light emitted later would catch up and pass slower light and that that would cause all kinds of bizarre images, Ralph! > They never occur because of light speed >unification. Oh cute, Ralph! You are saying that the speed of light is not constant except for when it is, and it always is. Why not embrace this statement of yours as proof that DirtyBathWater and variable light speed are failed concepts.
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:25 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:56 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:35 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-09 03:18 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:55 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:49 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-30 21:30 +0200
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 18:46 +0200
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 12:13 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:36 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:49 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:40 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 09:19 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-03 01:38 +0200
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:51 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-01 11:47 -0400
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:42 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:58 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:19 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:39 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:46 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 10:27 -0700
Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-07 10:47 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:52 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:14 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:18 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 12:29 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 10:12 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:36 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:38 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:39 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 16:09 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 23:34 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:57 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:39 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:22 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:50 +0000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:27 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:14 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:37 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 21:56 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:05 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:48 -0500
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:07 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:15 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:30 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:32 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:38 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:40 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 10:53 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 14:51 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 15:43 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2017-08-20 14:12 -0700
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 08:46 +1000
Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:28 -0700
csiph-web