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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672953 > unrolled thread

Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space

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

Contents

  Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:06 +0000
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:12 +0000
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:30 +0000
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:12 +0300
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:35 +0000
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-10 11:18 +0300
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:52 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 12:09 -0700
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 00:11 +0000
                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-10 19:20 -0700
                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:02 +0000
                        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:11 -0700
                          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:44 +0000
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-11 11:26 +0300
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-11 11:02 +0200
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 07:37 -0700
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 21:05 +0000
                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-12 13:05 +0300
                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:41 -0700
                        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 07:48 -0700
                          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-12 08:25 -0700
                            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:12 +0000
                              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:16 -0700
                                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 18:35 -0700
                                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:01 +0000
                                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:21 -0700
                                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:14 +0000
                                        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:24 -0700
                                          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 00:03 +0000
                                            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 17:22 -0700
                                              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 05:21 +0000
                              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
                                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:48 +0000
                                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 08:52 -0700
                                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:25 -0700
                                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space (Zeno, Vitali, Hausdorff, von Neumann) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:45 -0700
                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-12 12:59 +0200
                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 13:04 +0200
                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 23:28 +0000
                        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-14 11:41 +0300
                          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:05 +0000
                            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 09:24 -0700
                              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
                                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:29 -0700
                                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-14 10:53 -0700
                                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:49 +0000
                                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:48 +0000
                            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-15 12:07 +0300
                              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
                                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-16 10:48 +0300
                        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-14 11:43 +0200
                          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 16:14 +0000
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-13 10:18 +0200
                    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-13 09:45 -0700
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-11 22:10 +0200
                Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 16:13 -0700
                  Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-12 00:46 +0000
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:56 +0000
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-29 15:12 -0700
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-02 20:46 -0700
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-30 09:43 +0000
    Speed of light (was: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-09 04:03 +0200
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-09 12:06 +0300
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:39 +0000
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 16:44 -0700
          Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-09 17:12 -0700
            Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 18:19 +0000
              Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-11 08:45 -0700
    Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-09 11:31 +0200
      Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:43 +0000
        Re: Proof That Light Speed is Not c in Empty Space nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-10 23:58 +0200

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#673262

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:

> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 
>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>> theories.
>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>
>>> There you go again.
>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>> 
>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
> 
> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
> author is stupidity.

Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman

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

#673265

On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>
>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>> theories.
>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>
>>>> There you go again.
>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>
>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>
>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>> author is stupidity.
>
> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>

You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
"retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out
one side of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous
has that his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's
not entirely ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and
otherwise since accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both
Born and Feynman give in their own lesser-known accounts that
quantum-mechanics must somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.

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

#673274

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:24:14 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>
>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>
>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>>> author is stupidity.
>>
>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>
>>
> You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
> there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
> "retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out one side
> of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous has that
> his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's not entirely
> ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and otherwise since
> accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both Born and Feynman
> give in their own lesser-known accounts that quantum-mechanics must
> somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.

More unnecesary words. You could have simply said "the whole of modern 
physics, based on constant light speed, is complete bullshit." 

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

#673276

On 09/14/2026 10:18 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:24:14 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>
>> On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>>>> author is stupidity.
>>>
>>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>>
>>>
>> You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
>> there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
>> "retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out one side
>> of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous has that
>> his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's not entirely
>> ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and otherwise since
>> accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both Born and Feynman
>> give in their own lesser-known accounts that quantum-mechanics must
>> somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.
>
> More unnecesary words. You could have simply said "the whole of modern
> physics, based on constant light speed, is complete bullshit."
>

That's ridiculous, in the polaricentric model of the geodesy/orbifold
for light, light can be defined as the free-if-metered propagation
of decoherent information in space with pure-diffraction as according
to that Einstein's "L-principle" the constancy of speed of light is
simply and also according to what Einstein says a "local-L principle",
since Einstein says "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local" while
he says that "SR is local", what Einstein says what Einstein's
relativity theory is.


This is basically "something happens to have constant velocity and
reflect information over space, voila and then there was light".

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

#673278

On 09/14/2026 10:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/14/2026 10:18 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:24:14 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>>>>> author is stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
>>> there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
>>> "retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out one side
>>> of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous has that
>>> his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's not entirely
>>> ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and otherwise since
>>> accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both Born and Feynman
>>> give in their own lesser-known accounts that quantum-mechanics must
>>> somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.
>>
>> More unnecesary words. You could have simply said "the whole of modern
>> physics, based on constant light speed, is complete bullshit."
>>
>
> That's ridiculous, in the polaricentric model of the geodesy/orbifold
> for light, light can be defined as the free-if-metered propagation
> of decoherent information in space with pure-diffraction as according
> to that Einstein's "L-principle" the constancy of speed of light is
> simply and also according to what Einstein says a "local-L principle",
> since Einstein says "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local" while
> he says that "SR is local", what Einstein says what Einstein's
> relativity theory is.
>
>
> This is basically "something happens to have constant velocity and
> reflect information over space, voila and then there was light".
>
>
>

How about "Reading Foundations:  quantum super-probability".

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

#673291

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:53:22 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 09/14/2026 10:29 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 09/14/2026 10:18 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:24:14 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved
>>>>>>>>>> the presentation and connected relativity to rigorous
>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theories.
>>>>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid
>>>>>> ignorant author is stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
>>>> there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
>>>> "retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out one
>>>> side of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous
>>>> has that his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's
>>>> not entirely ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and
>>>> otherwise since accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both
>>>> Born and Feynman give in their own lesser-known accounts that
>>>> quantum-mechanics must somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.
>>>
>>> More unnecesary words. You could have simply said "the whole of modern
>>> physics, based on constant light speed, is complete bullshit."
>>>
>>>
>> That's ridiculous, in the polaricentric model of the geodesy/orbifold
>> for light, light can be defined as the free-if-metered propagation of
>> decoherent information in space with pure-diffraction as according to
>> that Einstein's "L-principle" the constancy of speed of light is simply
>> and also according to what Einstein says a "local-L principle",
>> since Einstein says "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local" while he
>> says that "SR is local", what Einstein says what Einstein's relativity
>> theory is.
>>
>>
>> This is basically "something happens to have constant velocity and
>> reflect information over space, voila and then there was light".
>>
>>
>>
>>
> How about "Reading Foundations:  quantum super-probability".

Nah! I'm too busy writing truths.

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

#673290

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 10:29:33 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 09/14/2026 10:18 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:24:14 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/14/2026 09:05 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved
>>>>>>>>> the presentation and connected relativity to rigorous
>>>>>>>>> mathematical theories.
>>>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid
>>>>> ignorant author is stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You have to read more than "Quantum Electro-Dynamics" from Feynman,
>>> there's "tunneling" after "scattering" and both "advanced" and
>>> "retarded" potentials, and about Stern-Gerlach that he lies out one
>>> side of his mouth while mumbling out the other, for being generous has
>>> that his account of reductionism is fair if false then that he's not
>>> entirely ignorant about "the re-normalizibility of theories" and
>>> otherwise since accounts like Born's "infinite self-energy" that both
>>> Born and Feynman give in their own lesser-known accounts that
>>> quantum-mechanics must somehow be a continuous-quantum-mechanics.
>>
>> More unnecesary words. You could have simply said "the whole of modern
>> physics, based on constant light speed, is complete bullshit."
>>
>>
> That's ridiculous, in the polaricentric model of the geodesy/orbifold
> for light, light can be defined as the free-if-metered propagation of
> decoherent information in space with pure-diffraction as according to
> that Einstein's "L-principle" the constancy of speed of light is simply
> and also according to what Einstein says a "local-L principle",
> since Einstein says "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local" while he
> says that "SR is local", what Einstein says what Einstein's relativity
> theory is.
> 
> 
> This is basically "something happens to have constant velocity and
> reflect information over space, voila and then there was light".

I'm terribly sory. I didn't know you were blind.

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

#673303

On 14/09/2026 19:05, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> 
>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
> 
>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>> theories.
>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>
>>>> There you go again.
>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>
>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>
>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>> author is stupidity.
> 
> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman

An attempt to swich the topic shows that you understand that you
can't defend your claims.

-- 
Mikko

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

#673321

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:07:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:

> On 14/09/2026 19:05, HenryWilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>
>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>
>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>>> author is stupidity.
>> 
>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
> 
> An attempt to swich the topic shows that you understand that you can't
> defend your claims.

I understand the limitations of SR. You don't even understand what it is 
al about.

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

#673330

On 16/09/2026 02:25, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:07:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> 
>> On 14/09/2026 19:05, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
>>>>>>>> theories.
>>>>>>> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
>>>>>>> situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go again.
>>>>>> Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>>>>>> So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>>>>>
>>>>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
>>>> author is stupidity.
>>>
>>> Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman
>>
>> An attempt to swich the topic shows that you understand that you can't
>> defend your claims.
> 
> I understand the limitations of SR. You don't even understand what it is
> al about.

That you again switch the topic shows the same as always.

-- 
Mikko

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

#673246

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 11:26:37 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 10/09/2026 20:52, HenryWilson wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:18:43 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote:
> >> >>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if
> >> >>> they is any, they don't say that light always has a source).
> >> >>>
> >> >>>   > That would have conflicted with Aether theories so Maxwell
> >> >>>   > would>
> >> >>> have been rather mystified.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Fortunately nothing that was known at that time conflicts with
> >> >>> aether theory
> >> >> 
> >> >> That is probably correct. The whole of physics was based on its
> >> >> existence.
> >> >> That's why Einstein's theory was snapped up after the MMX proved
> >> >> there was no Aether.
> >> > 
> >> > Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It
> >> > only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other
> >> > could explain the result assuming that there is an ether. But
> >> > Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained
> >> > with alnost the same explanation without any aether.
> >> 
> >> Yes, it is called magic.
> >> 
> >> >> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged
> >> >> reputations.
> >> > 
> >> > EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
> >> > presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
> >> > theories.
> >> It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical situations...but
> >> goes terribly wrong in others.
> > 
> > There you go again.
> > Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
> > So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
> 
> You will have to read my book to learn about those.

You are in for a big disappointment there.
At best a handful of crackpots will even try.

> However I will point out that it is essentially the interpretation of SR
> that is largely to blame rather than the theory itself. Contrary to what
> is generally believed, SR does not claim that light's speed in space is
> invariant.

You really need to read an up to date textbook on special relativity.
May I recommend 'Spacetime Physics', by Taylor and Wheeler,
for an elementary texbook?

> It is merely a mathematical trick that makes MEASURED LIGHT SPEED always
> appear to equal c, in a particular observer's frame.

In any particular frame even.

> Hence Einstein cannot really be blamed for the fact that the whole of
> Astronomy is wrong.

Apart from the minor detail that it does predict all motions
in the solar system to better to better than 10^-9 accuracy,
and use that accuracy to actually navigate space probes.
(based on constant and invariant light speed of course)

It would seem that you are completely clueless
about what it takes to argue with that.

> It has assumed constant light speed for 3000 years.

You really need to bone up on history of physics as well,

Jan

> > Jan (crickets)

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

#673263

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:43:53 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> 
>> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>> > 

>> > There you go again.
>> > Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
>> > So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,
>> 
>> You will have to read my book to learn about those.
> 
> You are in for a big disappointment there.
> At best a handful of crackpots will even try.
> 
>> However I will point out that it is essentially the interpretation of
>> SR that is largely to blame rather than the theory itself. Contrary to
>> what is generally believed, SR does not claim that light's speed in
>> space is invariant.
> 
> You really need to read an up to date textbook on special relativity.
> May I recommend 'Spacetime Physics', by Taylor and Wheeler,
> for an elementary texbook?
> 
>> It is merely a mathematical trick that makes MEASURED LIGHT SPEED
>> always appear to equal c, in a particular observer's frame.
> 
> In any particular frame even.
> 
>> Hence Einstein cannot really be blamed for the fact that the whole of
>> Astronomy is wrong.
> 
> Apart from the minor detail that it does predict all motions in the
> solar system to better to better than 10^-9 accuracy,
> and use that accuracy to actually navigate space probes.
> (based on constant and invariant light speed of course)
> 
> It would seem that you are completely clueless about what it takes to
> argue with that.

Do you mean better than 10^-9 accuracy in a constant c universe?

 
>> It has assumed constant light speed for 3000 years.
> 
> You really need to bone up on history of physics as well,

When you buy my impending book you will be able to read a complete history 
of Einstein's rise to fame.

> Jan
> 
>> > Jan (crickets)

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

#673190

Mikko wrote:
> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It
> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could
> explain the result assuming that there is an ether.

Correct.

> But Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained
> with alnost the same explanation without any aether.

Not quite.  Poincaré's work was based on Lorentz', and he did assume a
luminiferous aether just as Lorentz did before 1905.  In fact, Poincaré kept
clinging to this idea until his death in 1912.

Only Einstein started from the premise that a luminiferous aether would be
irrelevant because it could not be detected.
>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged
>> reputations.
> 
> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
> presentation and

_Improved_, yes.  Most importantly, Minkowski introduced the concept of
spacetime without which general relativity could not have been discovered
(by anyone).

> connected relativity to rigorous mathematical theories.

_Physical_ theories.  There is no such thing as a mathematical theory;
mathematics makes _theorems_, natural sciences make _theories_.  These two
must not be confused.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#673214

On 09/13/2026 01:18 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mikko wrote:
>> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It
>> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could
>> explain the result assuming that there is an ether.
>
> Correct.
>
>> But Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained
>> with alnost the same explanation without any aether.
>
> Not quite.  Poincaré's work was based on Lorentz', and he did assume a
> luminiferous aether just as Lorentz did before 1905.  In fact, Poincaré kept
> clinging to this idea until his death in 1912.
>
> Only Einstein started from the premise that a luminiferous aether would be
> irrelevant because it could not be detected.
>>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged
>>> reputations.
>>
>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>> presentation and
>
> _Improved_, yes.  Most importantly, Minkowski introduced the concept of
> spacetime without which general relativity could not have been discovered
> (by anyone).
>
>> connected relativity to rigorous mathematical theories.
>
> _Physical_ theories.  There is no such thing as a mathematical theory;
> mathematics makes _theorems_, natural sciences make _theories_.  These two
> must not be confused.
>

That's a bit astounding, "There is no such thing as a mathematical
theory: ...".

First of all, it's un-scientific.  Secondly it's not-inter-subjective.
Thirdly it's false.

Mathematical physics doesn't much arrive without mathematical theory.

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

#673223

On 09/13/2026 07:30 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 09/13/2026 01:18 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Mikko wrote:
>>> Michelson-Morley experiment did not prove that there is no aether. It
>>> only proved that something was not understood. Lorentz and other could
>>> explain the result assuming that there is an ether.
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>> But Poincaré and Einstein observed that the the same can be explained
>>> with alnost the same explanation without any aether.
>>
>> Not quite.  Poincaré's work was based on Lorentz', and he did assume a
>> luminiferous aether just as Lorentz did before 1905.  In fact,
>> Poincaré kept
>> clinging to this idea until his death in 1912.
>>
>> Only Einstein started from the premise that a luminiferous aether
>> would be
>> irrelevant because it could not be detected.
>>>> Einstein's mathematical skullduggery saved a lot of damaged
>>>> reputations.
>>>
>>> EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the
>>> presentation and
>>
>> _Improved_, yes.  Most importantly, Minkowski introduced the concept of
>> spacetime without which general relativity could not have been discovered
>> (by anyone).
>>
>>> connected relativity to rigorous mathematical theories.
>>
>> _Physical_ theories.  There is no such thing as a mathematical theory;
>> mathematics makes _theorems_, natural sciences make _theories_.  These
>> two
>> must not be confused.
>>
>
> That's a bit astounding, "There is no such thing as a mathematical
> theory: ...".
>
> First of all, it's un-scientific.  Secondly it's not-inter-subjective.
> Thirdly it's false.
>
> Mathematical physics doesn't much arrive without mathematical theory.
>
>


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiomontanus'_angle_maximization_problem

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

#673138

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote:
> > 
> >> On 07/09/2026 19:30, HenryWilson wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 07 Sep 26 16:12:12 +0000, Python wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Le 07/09/2026 à 18:06, HenryWilson a écrit :
> >>>>> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to
> >>>>> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to Maxwell, c is the propagation speed of electromagnetic
> >>>> waves in vacuum.
> >>>
> >>> So you are now claiming that light DOES NOT move at c relative to its
> >>> source!!!!
> >>
> >> It is not a good idea to lie when the truth is visible to your audience.
> >>
> >> Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is c
> >> relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
> >> thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
> >> that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.
> >> Later Michelson tried to determine Earths speed in that frame but
> >> failed.
> > 
> > Correct .I have already pointed all that out.
> 
> You havn't in this discussion.
> 
> > but on studying Maxwell's equations, I realized that they did say light
>  > moves at c relative to its source....
> 
> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if they
> is any, they don't say that light always has a source).

But even if you add that asummption
(as in Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics)
the speed of light is still independent of its source.

It is just another of his red herrings,

Jan

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

#673148

On 09/11/2026 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2026 02:35, HenryWilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:12:25 +0300, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/09/2026 19:30, HenryWilson wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 07 Sep 26 16:12:12 +0000, Python wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 07/09/2026 à 18:06, HenryWilson a écrit :
>>>>>>> If space contains a light source, it is not empty...and according to
>>>>>>> Maxwell, light always moves at c relative to its source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Maxwell, c is the propagation speed of electromagnetic
>>>>>> waves in vacuum.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are now claiming that light DOES NOT move at c relative to its
>>>>> source!!!!
>>>>
>>>> It is not a good idea to lie when the truth is visible to your audience.
>>>>
>>>> Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is c
>>>> relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
>>>> thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
>>>> that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.
>>>> Later Michelson tried to determine Earths speed in that frame but
>>>> failed.
>>>
>>> Correct .I have already pointed all that out.
>>
>> You havn't in this discussion.
>>
>>> but on studying Maxwell's equations, I realized that they did say light
>>   > moves at c relative to its source....
>>
>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if they
>> is any, they don't say that light always has a source).
>
> But even if you add that asummption
> (as in Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics)
> the speed of light is still independent of its source.
>
> It is just another of his red herrings,
>
> Jan
>

The speed of light is independent in its space,
which of its source is of its frame it space, its frame.


Jingleheimer

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

#673153

On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:13:01 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 09/11/2026 01:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>>
>>> They say that the speed of light is independent of its source (if they
>>> is any, they don't say that light always has a source).
>>
>> But even if you add that asummption (as in Wheeler-Feynman
>> electrodynamics)
>> the speed of light is still independent of its source.
>>
>> It is just another of his red herrings,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
> The speed of light is independent in its space,
> which of its source is of its frame it space, its frame.

Do you realize how stupid thatstatement was?
> 
> 
> Jingleheimer

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

#673864

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:
>Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is
>c relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
>thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
>that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.

  In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation

Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E,

  and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There
  is no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source.

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

#673893

Stefan Ram wrote:
> 
> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:
> >Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is
> >c relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
> >thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
> >that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.
> 
>   In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation
> 
> Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E,
> 
>   and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There
>   is no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source.

There is no such thing as "Empty Space".

it has to hit something...

it doesn't doge stuff..

so it cannot ever reach 'it's' speed of light.

Vacumns do not exist.

empty space does not exist.

dat is why the earth revolves around the sun...
the sun is in it's way.

wat is the speed of light in the ocean?

if it don't hit a fish... 


-- 
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]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web