Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #612920 > unrolled thread

Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 15:10 -0700
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 15:14 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 16:27 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 17:41 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:45 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 10:43 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:11 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:08 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-06-14 22:21 -0700
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 17:43 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 18:15 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 18:23 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:20 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-14 22:39 -0500
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-14 20:59 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:00 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-17 22:37 +1000
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Wyouman Ophoven <eowp@ovenvnyh.ho> - 2023-06-17 16:42 +0000
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:00 -0700
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 06:04 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 08:34 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-14 21:40 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 12:55 -0700
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-17 22:39 +1000
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 07:41 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Braden Peerenboom <bemo@nrrrenon.rm> - 2023-06-17 16:13 +0000
          Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-17 08:12 -0700
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-06-17 17:16 +0200
            Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 19:31 -0400
              Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:41 -0700
                Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 17:10 -0700
                  Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 03:47 -0700
                    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:38 -0700
                Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-18 01:04 -0400
                  Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Roosevelt Rooiakker <orts@aesrorov.oo> - 2023-06-20 22:17 +0000
    Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Carlos L <asjcharles@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 16:42 -0700
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-17 08:11 -0400
        Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Clerence Langbroek <gbee@ncaeneng.al> - 2023-06-17 12:20 +0000
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-06-18 14:57 +1000
      Re: Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#612920 — Why the speed of light cannot be constant in all frames

1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.

2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
     second).  That means no constant c. 
     1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
      OR
     1 second in A's frame =  gamma seconds in B;s frame.

3. Replace "c" in  every SR equation with:
     c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
           frequency)
OR
     c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
           frequency)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#612921

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> 
> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> second). That means no constant c. 

Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with
(let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
works in general.

Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612926

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > 
> > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > second). That means no constant c.
> Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> works in general. 
> 
> Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you. 

inning of that phrase mean
 you  don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612930

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > > 
> > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > > second). That means no constant c. 
> > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> > works in general. 
> > 
> > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you.
> inning of that phrase mean 
> you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase.
JanPB likes to dump on people especially trying to drive them off instead of allowing a civil forum. The arrogance of relativists is incredible. This is a characteristic of ideologues who dogmatically assert their ideology.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612957

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > > 
> > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > > second). That means no constant c. 
> > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> > works in general. 
> > 
> > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you.
> inning of that phrase mean 
> you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase.

Again: what you wrote was not even wrong. You have no idea what science 
is and how it's supposed to work. Your complaints about the speed of light
constancy are exactly like saying "2+2 cannot be 5 because it's 17". It's all
just nonsense talk that you post here. Complete nonsense.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612983

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:45:27 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > > > 
> > > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > > > second). That means no constant c. 
> > > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> > > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> > > works in general. 
> > > 
> > > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you. 
> > inning of that phrase mean 
> > you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase.
> Again: what you wrote was not even wrong. You have no idea what science 
> is and how it's supposed to work. Your complaints about the speed of light 
> constancy are exactly like saying "2+2 cannot be 5 because it's 17". It's all 
> just nonsense talk that you post here. Complete nonsense. 
> 
Go ahead and argue against these facts:
1. The speed of anything is observer dependent.
2. There is no unit of clock time (including a clock second)  that represents the same amount of time in different frames.

I you can't than I would conclude that you were just talking trash

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612987

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:43:15 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:45:27 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > > > > second). That means no constant c. 
> > > > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> > > > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> > > > works in general. 
> > > > 
> > > > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you. 
> > > inning of that phrase mean 
> > > you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase. 
> > Again: what you wrote was not even wrong. You have no idea what science 
> > is and how it's supposed to work. Your complaints about the speed of light 
> > constancy are exactly like saying "2+2 cannot be 5 because it's 17". It's all 
> > just nonsense talk that you post here. Complete nonsense. 
> >
> Go ahead and argue against these facts: 
> 1. The speed of anything is observer dependent. 
> 2. There is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of time in different frames. 
> 
> I you can't than I would conclude that you were just talking trash

The observed speed of anything is observer-dependent....

There are different frames with different rates, ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#613163

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:43:15 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:45:27 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: 
> > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote: 
> > > > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> > > > > second). That means no constant c. 
> > > > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with 
> > > > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science 
> > > > works in general. 
> > > > 
> > > > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you. 
> > > inning of that phrase mean 
> > > you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase. 
> > Again: what you wrote was not even wrong. You have no idea what science 
> > is and how it's supposed to work. Your complaints about the speed of light 
> > constancy are exactly like saying "2+2 cannot be 5 because it's 17". It's all 
> > just nonsense talk that you post here. Complete nonsense. 
> >
> Go ahead and argue against these facts: 
> 1. The speed of anything is observer dependent. 
> 2. There is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of time in different frames. 
> 
> I you can't than I would conclude that you were just talking trash

What you wrote above has nothing to do with you claim (which is not even wrong).

Physics is simply not for you. Do something else that you can be good at instead.
Physics will only be an endless stream of frustration for you because you'll never
get anywhere with this.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612959

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
> >
> > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
> > second). That means no constant c.
> 
> Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with
> (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science
> works in general.
> 
> Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you.
> 
> --
> Jan

It is 'his' time to waste.



Would you tell a serial killer who has already killed 27 people...


"Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you."????




I would have to say, (and I'm sure everyone else agrees) your postings on

Usenet are a waste of time for you, pick a different hobby.

Ain't you wasting your time telling others that are wasting their time????


What a waste of time!


Maybe, telling others they are wasting time is...your hobby. 


Somebody askes you, "Do you have any hobbies?"


"Oh yeah, my hobby is telling everyone else they are wasting their time!"


And then they say..."Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you."











-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612931

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent. 
> 
> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock 
> second). That means no constant c. 
> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> OR 
> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame. 
> 
> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with: 
> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> frequency) 
> OR 
> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming 
> frequency)
What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612934

If light has its own speed the atom's speed can move toward or away
from light with atoms own speed in space. Both obey the c speed limit
of themselves. But can converge and diverge with above c overall
added two speed.


Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612935

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

>  In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.

Your opinions are Irrelevant in physics. Stick to the facts. Or, are you a reality denier?
The facts are, scientists have always measured the speed of light to be c, no matter the source.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612943

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:23:12 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> 
> > In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> Your opinions are Irrelevant in physics. Stick to the facts. Or, are you a reality denier? 
> The facts are, scientists have always measured the speed of light to be c, no matter the source.

How does science know the speed of the measuring device?
Light has its own c speed. The atom has its own below c.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612946

On 6/14/23 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the
> velocity of the source, as in ballistics.

Physics is a science. In science, such opinions simply do not count -- 
what matters is experiments. Experiments show that your opinion is 
flat-out wrong.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612950

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/14/23 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the 
> > velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> Physics is a science. In science, such opinions simply do not count -- 
> what matters is experiments. Experiments show that your opinion is 
> flat-out wrong. 
> 
> Tom Roberts
It is hard to imagine how anyone can be so stupid and ignorant. Relativity is not a science. According to Feynman, light "actually always behaves in a ballistic manner". If you paid attention to Valev, he has given that quote probably more than once. Your interpretation of experiments is an opinion that doesn't count. Feynman's interpretation counts.  The claim that experiments have proved relativity is just complete nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612967

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 11:59:49 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> It is hard to imagine how anyone can be so stupid and ignorant. 

that, you are.

> Relativity is not a science.

Its a model, found via exps & observations. Relativity is thus part, or a result of science.

 > According to Feynman, light "actually always behaves in a ballistic manner". 

Irrelevant. Relativity is a model. It models/predicts very well our observations. 

> Your interpretation of experiments is an opinion that doesn't count. 

That an exp gave a result of 5 say, is not an interpretation; it's a statement of fact.
You show once more that you do not know the meaning of the words you use.

>> The facts are, scientists have always measured the speed of light to be c, no matter the source.

No rebuttal? Looks like you do know what the facts are but are too much of a coward to admit it.
This is another feature of a crank or a troll...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#613095

On 15-June-23 1:59 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>   According to Feynman, light "actually always behaves in a ballistic manner".

Cite?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#613120

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 15-June-23 1:59 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>   According to Feynman, light "actually always behaves in a ballistic
>>   manner".
> 
> Cite?

sure.
 
*_South_African_president’s_security_detail_prevented_from_going_to_Russia_*
Hungary refused to let the aircraft into its airspace 
*_after_Polish_authorities_blocked_dozens_of_South_African_security_personnel_*
https://%72t.com/news/578210-african-president-security-detail-goes-home/

A nice lesson the Africans can bring home to share with their fellow, 
elected leaders. *_European_"garden"_values._Yay_*!

Poland gets instructions from its master the US. Next time, South Africa 
visiting Russia should fly the other route through China. 
*_The_collective_west_are_acting_like_Mafias_*. Never trust them, 
*_never_*.

It is impossible to understand Poland’s motives in being so offensive and 
obstructive to a neutral country unless 
*_it_was_on_the_orders_of_their_masters_*. This incident will have 
negative repercussions for Poland.

I'm sure when Zelensky flees for his life, that 
*_the_west_will_open_its_airspace_to_his_cargo_plane_filled_with_money_*.

This is one more reason for being member of BRISC and keeping away from 
apartheid supporters. If *_it_was_not_* for China and Russia support 
people would 
*_still_mine_blood_diamonds_in_South_Africa_for_the_British_*.

*_South_Africa!_Remember_this_insult_by_Poland_*, where they stopped you 
even though you had *_diplomatic_passports_* and are merely 
*_protecting_your_president_*! The West is doing everything they can to 
kick you in the nuts just *_because_you_do_not_submit_to_the_hegemony_*! 
Open your eyes and know who are your friends and who wants to slap you.

On average *_US_spends_$0.33Bn/yr_aid_per_African_state_* and now 
*_close_to_$40Bn/yr_on_Ukraine_*. Question am asking,Do you think the 
value of 0.3bn African investment supercede the value of 40bn US is 
investing in Ukraine

Sometimes i wonder if the Polish are really slavic.. 
*_always_arslicking_the_Anglo_Saxons_.._*

Well.. Time for Africa to stand on its own. Kick everything out related to 
the EUS, *_no_good_did_and_will_come_from_those_creatures_*! Asia and soon 
South America is the way to go. Best luck to the most beautiful continent 
on so called planet earth. You been raped long enough 
*_by_western_crime_syndicates_*!

Poland, the last appendage of nasizm
Sorry, but no delegation will be able to convince Ukraine to make peace. 
It is a waste of time. The West wants war. They will have war, alright.

*_Poland_a_desperate_American_proper_nazi_stooge_* just keep on doing 
something or its leaders talking some nonsense just be in the ' News '. 
Ignore them, give them same treatment when the time comes. Just don't pay 
attention *_to_this_warmonger_nation_with_corrupted_people_*.

*_EU_has_shown_its_true_color_..._* This only happen because Africa sides 
with Russia.

*_The_west_threatened_any_government_going_to_the_ST_Petersburg_forum_* 
with *_repercussions_*. I’m not at all surprised that Poland would pull 
this kinda thing, it’s right up there alley. Though I’m very surprised and 
confused about Hungary. Maybe they are factions in the Hungarian 
government there are undermining the Orban government.

Now *_the_South_Africans_can_see_firsthand_and_everyone_around_the_world_* 
can see plainly with eyes wide open 
*_what_type_of_lowlifes_Russia_is_dealing_with_*. They actually did Russia 
a favor by *_exposing_themselves_so_blatantly_* as lower than elementary 
grade school children and *_couldn't_even_constrain_themselves_* from 
behaving *_so_disgustingly_for_a_few_minutes_*. This WILL have diplomatic 
repercussions vis-a-vis South Africa and its diplomatic stance toward the 
Eastern European states, and throughout Africa and the global-south as a 
whole.

Action of *_prostitutes_or_what_the_west_is_turning_into_*, because they 
are *_the_whore_of_Babylon_*.

We should host the talks in Africa,let them now come to African

*_Harrasing_South_Africa_is_no_coincidence_*, they try to exert pressure 
in regards to the Brics meeting taking place there.

The west is out of control. Hopefully their tyranny along with the U.S 
comes to an end

Do *_the_fools_running_these_countries_*, Poland, Hungary ever thinks how 
daft this makes them look outside the Western school yard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612952

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/14/23 7:43 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the 
> > velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> Physics is a science. In science, such opinions simply do not count -- 
> what matters is experiments. Experiments show that your opinion is 
> flat-out wrong. 
> 
> Tom Roberts

If the car is going lightspeed, then it turns on its headlights, ....


Light is generated by various means, and, there are various 
origins of light-like, ..., particles/beams/waves/wave-packets/photons, 
whether electron-holes are bradyonic, ..., various origins of 
light-like events, anything is an event.

When light is, ..., generated, it exists in a medium, even if that 
medium is "only" space.

Light or rather the light-like travels, in the medium.

When light is generated, it shares the "velocity of the space", eg 0
vis-a-vis, "relativistical dynamics eg. space-contraction", what is, 
the "velocity of the source", in the space.


I kind of call this "light speed rest frame theory" and 
"rest exchange momentum theory", which are adapters 
about "general relativity's dynamics of space and its derived 
dynamics of the light-like in space, special relativity".

But, most people have that direction of derivation backward.
So, I clearly delineate the derivation and then point at Einstein 
and say that in his later years he made it clear that the 
derivation is that SR is _local_ and _after_ GR, not otherwise. 
This way then I can give Einstein's model of a physicist and 
model of a philosopher copies of an "LSRF" theory and an "REMT"
theory and watch them work it out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#612968

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:00:36 AM UTC-4, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:39:25 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

> If the car is going lightspeed, then [snip]

But relativity says that that is impossible, so there is no need to read the rest of your argument.
You are forcing that 0=1. You are forcing a contradictory premise.
If you want to analyze relativity, analyze relativity!

Perhaps you meant If the car is going almost lightspeed, then...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web