Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614563 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-06 11:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-07 20:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:09 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:14 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 11:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:19 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-07 15:26 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:14 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 09:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 14:57 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 13:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:30 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 16:34 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 16:52 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:57 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-07 17:04 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 16:31 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:02 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 12:09 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-08 01:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 21:45 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 12:48 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 15:17 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 16:03 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 16:06 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-06 11:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-06 23:07 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 14:46 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-06 21:07 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:11 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 10:14 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:40 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 10:57 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 12:43 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Kalaki Kalacos <oiis@nnnhgsoi.nd> - 2023-07-07 17:55 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 12:28 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:10 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-09 11:59 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-07-09 15:09 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 18:15 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-07 22:13 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 14:22 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Duston Pantelakos <eats@sonknkdt.tt> - 2023-07-07 21:15 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:20 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 13:45 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-06 22:54 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 20:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 01:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 21:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 10:10 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 09:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:09 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 18:30 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 18:33 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-08 03:16 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:08 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-08 03:33 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:31 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 00:45 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-08 09:49 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 18:49 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 12:20 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 02:24 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:00 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-07 17:37 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 07:53 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-08 11:52 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 12:50 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 09:51 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 23:55 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:07 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:42 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:45 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 22:00 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:33 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 16:07 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:10 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 16:59 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 22:31 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:30 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 12:42 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 13:02 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-08 18:54 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-09 11:58 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-09 14:15 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 19:29 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:19 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Norge Brisimitzakis <niig@tbirsnii.ie> - 2023-07-07 18:31 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:36 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 19:06 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 20:47 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:50 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@alphapou.net> - 2023-07-07 21:12 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 09:26 +0200
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:17 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 17:40 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-07 18:51 -0500
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mervin Paraskevopoulos <eepk@aupoavsa.sl> - 2023-07-07 18:19 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 17:28 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bertin Lolos <rblb@ltinllrt.ot> - 2023-07-07 21:53 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-07 23:46 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Nolberto Eliopoulos <looo@btoloene.pb> - 2023-07-08 19:29 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-08 12:58 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bondie Antonopoulos <oebo@niononud.te> - 2023-07-08 20:36 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-08 15:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Michaes Egonidis <esnh@soddssei.si> - 2023-07-08 23:10 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:59 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-07-09 11:05 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Jeff Egonidis <noig@iegoiiio.nf> - 2023-07-09 18:20 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-06 14:56 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 11:06 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 11:22 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-07 14:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Deangelo Sfakianos <enoe@adaonlnd.eo> - 2023-07-07 19:28 +0000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:28 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 13:50 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:52 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-08 14:56 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:32 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-09 10:48 +1000
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 19:16 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-09 12:04 +0300
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-08 00:04 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 21:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-08 10:24 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-09 13:32 -0400
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 13:15 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 15:03 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 21:20 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 22:59 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:13 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:37 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:39 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 23:47 -0700
Re: A sniper bullet trajectory & relativity. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-07 20:50 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgruq2F1vk7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614621 |
On 07-July-23 7:33 pm, Richard Hachel wrote: > Le 07/07/2023 à 07:26, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> He never made such a claim. But the repeated failure to detect it >> raised the possibility that the speed of light is constant, and >> Einstein explored that. > > C'est faux. > > Il faut que tu arrêtes tes mensonges. > > Einstein est une création médiatique anglo-américaine. > > Les premiers travaux théorique ont été fait par Joseph Larmor, Antoon > Lorentz, Langevin, et surtout Poincaré. > > L'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière par changement de référentiel, > et toutes les bases de la RR existaient déjà bien avant 1905. > Toute la RR était déjà écrite, de E=mc² aux TLs. > Il n'a donc rien exploré du tout. > > Il faudrait arrêter avec cet incroyable mythe. > R.H. For crying out loud - this is an English language newsgroup. What is wrong with you? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 01:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8807f015-2e4f-4c8a-8fdc-ac8cc1692c22n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614606 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 06:26:34 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 07-July-23 5:19 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > Those who, like Einstein, claimed the lack of an ether wind meant light speed is constant, conflated two quite different things. Therefore, by means of elementary logic and science everyone can understand better than Einstein. The authorities continue to make the same error, including many critics of relativity. > He never made such a claim. But the repeated failure to detect it raised > the possibility that the speed of light is constant, and Einstein > explored that. > > You seem to want to argue that the fact that certain experiments did not > prove that the speed of light is constant constitutes a proof that it is > not. > > With such a level of muddled thinking, I have to wonder how you manage > to function in the world. > True, but there is misinformation on both sides of the argument. As with the claim made to discredit any emission theory: The claim being that Sagnac cannot be explained by any emission theory. Apparently emission theory predicts no path difference when Sagnac is rotated. This is a false claim and is to wiki’s discredit that it publishes this fact free anti emission fantasy. We know Sagnac ring or gyro will measure rotation regardless of where the axis of rotation is located. Some people like wiki or yourself, disingenuously put it only at the axis only at Center of the ring and make the incorrect calculation to back up their false claim that emission theory predicts no path difference. But the fact is that if one puts the axis of rotation at or directly below the source, then the source does not move and the experiment rotates around the source. At which point the source frame is also the lab frame where only the mirrors rotate. And we know that if one calculates path difference in the lab frame, where light is at c both for emission and SR, then we get a path difference predicted not just for SR. But for emission theories like Ritz’s undulatory theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 21:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgojtuFgnpuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614565 |
On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any >> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the >> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the >> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's >> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX >> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely > ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of > facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives > "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, > Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph > D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that book. Did you use a pseudonym? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bd90ce7-abed-4f0a-9ae0-b9fe276cf1e4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614572 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > >> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > >> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > >> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's > >> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX > >> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. > > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely > > ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of > > facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives > > "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, > > Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph > > D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. > Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that > book. Did you use a pseudonym? > > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots Bright guy, I gave the author. Look again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <272e6281-b216-49c8-8f15-b03db09bfaean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614572 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > >> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > >> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > >> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's > >> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX > >> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. > > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely > > ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of > > facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives > > "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, > > Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph > > D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. > Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that > book. Did you use a pseudonym? > > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8d28821-175e-4962-abfd-e6c586984f5an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614574 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:48:20 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. Look in a mirror...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a1d89b4-9a76-417e-bf31-106926508027n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614576 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:16:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:48:20 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. > Look in a mirror... If you could tell the difference between an ether window and the constancy of the speed of light, you may have provided evidence you have any intelligence at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 15:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgolrlFgvt3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614574 |
On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >> >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any >>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the >>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the >>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's >>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX >>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. >>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely >>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of >>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives >>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, >>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph >>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. >> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that >> book. Did you use a pseudonym? >> >> >> -- >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. And convincer of the weak minded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6000aa20-3954-472e-bd82-e5dfbf9bc6bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614578 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >> > >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > >>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > >>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > >>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's > >>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX > >>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. > >>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely > >>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of > >>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives > >>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, > >>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph > >>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. > >> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that > >> book. Did you use a pseudonym? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. > And convincer of the weak minded. A strong minded person would acknowledge that Einstein and his followers made an elementary error and were incorrect to think the null result meant the speed of light is constant. It's very easy for a strong minded person to know better than Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 16:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgoohpFhb51U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614580 |
On 7/6/2023 3:32 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any >>>>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the >>>>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the >>>>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's >>>>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX >>>>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. >>>>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely >>>>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of >>>>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives >>>>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, >>>>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph >>>>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. >>>> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that >>>> book. Did you use a pseudonym? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. >> And convincer of the weak minded. > A strong minded person would acknowledge that Einstein and his followers made an elementary error and were incorrect to think the null result meant the speed of light is constant. It's very easy for a strong minded person to know better than Einstein. I have always acknowledged that Einstein *might* have been wrong. I've been waiting for decades for some sort of demonstration that he actually was wrong, demonstration beyond "because you say so." I'm still asking, "Where's the beef?" Clearly you don't know. You have proved unable to advance science. I've never claimed I could, leaving me in a "believer" position for lack of anything better. You do know that your attempts to beat up on me don't advance you cause, don't you? Arm waving hysteria doesn't cut it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58901930-937f-4b92-bff3-5b04030ef287n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614578 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > >> > >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > >>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > >>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > >>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's > >>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX > >>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. > >>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely > >>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of > >>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives > >>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, > >>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph > >>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. > >> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that > >> book. Did you use a pseudonym? > >> > >> > >> -- > >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. > And convincer of the weak minded. Your mentality is like the book, "The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook." It presumes we want to change the status quo like children imagining they can change the world. We are just trying to find out the truth by weeding out obvious errors such as conflating the ether wind and the constancy of light speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 16:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgooniFhb51U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614581 |
On 7/6/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: >> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>>> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any >>>>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the >>>>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the >>>>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's >>>>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX >>>>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. >>>>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely >>>>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of >>>>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives >>>>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, >>>>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph >>>>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers. >>>> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that >>>> book. Did you use a pseudonym? >>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots >>> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits. >> And convincer of the weak minded. > Your mentality is like the book, "The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook." It presumes we want to change the status quo like children imagining they can change the world. We are just trying to find out the truth by weeding out obvious errors such as conflating the ether wind and the constancy of light speed. The problem is that what you claim is obvious isn't. If it were your function would be complete without your ever questioning anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64A70EF5.237@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #614563 |
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light. the sniper needs to be in a vacumm there is no wind...in a vacumm. -- 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]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdgwuw.16braw7f11al9N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614563 |
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote: > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > constancy of the speed of light. Of course it didn't. Why kick down this open door once again? (and worse, with faulty arguments) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2245a28d-4229-4916-ad19-516d3d1551bfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614587 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > > account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > > it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > > does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > > not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > > shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > > constancy of the speed of light. > Of course it didn't. > Why kick down this open door once again? > (and worse, with faulty arguments) > > Jan Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u87og0$12tkb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614590 |
On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, >>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It >>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does >>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still >>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the >>> constancy of the speed of light. >> Of course it didn't. >> Why kick down this open door once again? >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) >> >> Jan > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's what all the experimental results stated. (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for belief in a constant speed of light?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 20:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0998f7f-05cf-44bf-8586-0494b2ace9fbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614596 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, > >>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It > >>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does > >>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still > >>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the > >>> constancy of the speed of light. > >> Of course it didn't. > >> Why kick down this open door once again? > >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > >> > >> Jan > > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > what all the experimental results stated. > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > belief in a constant speed of light?) This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 10:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdhqdg.1ecnr9b2gh49yN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614599 |
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > > >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > > >>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > > >>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > > >>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the > > >>> bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. > > >>> Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of > > >>> light. > > >> > > >> Of course it didn't. > > >> Why kick down this open door once again? > > >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > > >> > > >> Jan > > > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved > > > the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid > > > conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > > > > > Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > > MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > > what all the experimental results stated. > > > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > > belief in a constant speed of light?) > This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. This 'well-known fact' is known to crackpots like you only. History flatly contradicts it of course. If constancy of the speed of light follows from MMX, why didn't Michelson say so right away? (FYI, he said something altogether different) Why did the whole scientific establishment of the late 19th century, including the best minds there were at the time, struggle with the interpretation of MMX for almost 30 years? The answer is of course that constancy of the speed of light doesn't 'follow' from anything. It took the genius of Einstein to see that everything falls into place once you -postulate- it. MMX is then merely a trivial corrolary. > Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? Now now, come on, Hanlon's Razor applies. "Never assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation". You -could- try to mend the errors of your ways, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 01:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f50e2fd8-c195-4ce7-8637-c534a0052389n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614612 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 10:14:05 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > > > >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > > > >>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > > > >>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > > > >>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the > > > >>> bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. > > > >>> Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of > > > >>> light. > > > >> > > > >> Of course it didn't. > > > >> Why kick down this open door once again? > > > >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > > > >> > > > >> Jan > > > > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved > > > > the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid > > > > conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > > > > > > > Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > > > MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > > > what all the experimental results stated. > > > > > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > > > belief in a constant speed of light?) > > > This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. > This 'well-known fact' is known to crackpots like you only. > History flatly contradicts it of course. > If constancy of the speed of light follows from MMX, > why didn't Michelson say so right away? Because it only follows from MMX for brainwashed Shit believers? > Why did the whole scientific establishment of the late 19th century, > including the best minds there were at the time, > struggle with the interpretation of MMX for almost 30 years? > The answer is of course that constancy of the speed of light > doesn't 'follow' from anything. Sure, it's just a consequence of insane postulates of an insane halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a586fe0-1426-4413-bad9-68c846e5fc93n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614612 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > > > On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into > > > >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any > > > >>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the > > > >>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the > > > >>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the > > > >>> bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. > > > >>> Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of > > > >>> light. > > > >> > > > >> Of course it didn't. > > > >> Why kick down this open door once again? > > > >> (and worse, with faulty arguments) > > > >> > > > >> Jan > > > > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved > > > > the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid > > > > conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all. > > > > > > > Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the > > > MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's > > > what all the experimental results stated. > > > > > > (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for > > > belief in a constant speed of light?) > > > This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. > This 'well-known fact' is known to crackpots like you only. > History flatly contradicts it of course. > If constancy of the speed of light follows from MMX, > why didn't Michelson say so right away? > (FYI, he said something altogether different) > > Why did the whole scientific establishment of the late 19th century, > including the best minds there were at the time, > struggle with the interpretation of MMX for almost 30 years? > > The answer is of course that constancy of the speed of light > doesn't 'follow' from anything. > It took the genius of Einstein to see that everything falls into place > once you -postulate- it. > MMX is then merely a trivial corrolary. > > Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? > Now now, come on, Hanlon's Razor applies. > "Never assume malice when stupidity is an adequate explanation". > You -could- try to mend the errors of your ways, > > Jan I did not say constancy of the speed of light follows from the MMX. I said it does not. It does not because the MMX is most parsimoniously explained by ordinary additive velocities, which assume light shares the source's velocity. Obviously, the best minds had trouble relinquishing the ether. I don't believe in an ether, but Einstein adopted it again in 1920. The constancy of the speed of light can be determined from an experiment like the MMX but more exact because the perpendicular beam would have negative additive velocity. I might figure you people are stupid or you are lying or just plain mistaken. It is curious that you have even twisted Hanlon's razor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web