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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 22:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdinf7.2ddkn11qwoywgN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614652 |
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Yes, so I asked you: === Of course it didn't. Why kick down this open door once again? (and worse, with faulty arguments) === You didn't answer. > 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. Yes, yes, covered that already. "faulty arguments". > 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. Don't worry, in your case stupidity is in all likelyhood the adequate explanation, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 12:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u89fbe$1cnd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614599 |
On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result was SR. I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to prove a certain form of aether didn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kalaki Kalacos <oiis@nnnhgsoi.nd> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 17:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u89ji8$3d7a6$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614643 |
Volney wrote: >> This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. Do you have >> to accuse anyone of lying? > > I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > ass of course is Russia's fault not taking back Odessa and co. I would want to visit Odessa, but I cant visit anything with those nazis in it. You fucking american immigrants not even know what a nazi is. You never saw a nazi, you fucking inbreed. You play with words of nazi, but you don't know what it is. Fuck you, morony. You think communism is capitalism and capitalism is communism. Fucking idiots of america. they have cocaine dealer in their fucking white hows, where a man, possing as the first lady were fucking unborn american black president of the united states in his as. Now his vicepresident sniffs cocaine and promulgate tranny pedophiles to children, in schools, military etc. FUck you, america, suck my dick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ce6bfc-94b7-4474-9598-92aed8570ebbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614643 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? > > I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments > before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a > constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves > "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" > > Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light > as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of > light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light > (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result > was SR. > > I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. > A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. > > The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also > doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to > prove a certain form of aether didn't exist. The physicists were wondering whether it shared the velocity of the source, and even Michelson in 1913, when he did his moving mirrors experiment (as I have mentioned here) thought it did not. Interpreting the experiments as showing light speed is constant does not mean they necessarily showed that. It is now clear they did not because simple additive velocities suffice, as has been shown by many scientists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 12:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgrvutF1vk7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614658 |
On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >> On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? >> >> I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. >> You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his >> ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments >> before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a >> constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves >> "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" >> >> Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light >> as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of >> light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light >> (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result >> was SR. >> >> I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. >> A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. >> >> The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also >> doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to >> prove a certain form of aether didn't exist. > The physicists were wondering whether it shared the velocity of the source, and even Michelson in 1913, when he did his moving mirrors experiment (as I have mentioned here) thought it did not. Interpreting the experiments as showing light speed is constant does not mean they necessarily showed that. It is now clear they did not because simple additive velocities suffice, as has been shown by many scientists. If the simple addition of velocities explained it all, do you not think that the physicists of the time would have realised that? Of course, the results of Fizeau's experiment, performed several decades before MMX, were already a problem for a model based on simple addition. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 21:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d425a86-ccbc-4751-8046-b3ec9058665en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614716 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2023 at 04:28:49 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? > >> > >> I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > >> You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > >> ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments > >> before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a > >> constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves > >> "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" > >> > >> Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light > >> as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of > >> light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light > >> (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result > >> was SR. > >> > >> I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. > >> A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. > >> > >> The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also > >> doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to > >> prove a certain form of aether didn't exist. > > The physicists were wondering whether it shared the velocity of the source, and even Michelson in 1913, when he did his moving mirrors experiment (as I have mentioned here) thought it did not. Interpreting the experiments as showing light speed is constant does not mean they necessarily showed that. It is now clear they did not because simple additive velocities suffice, as has been shown by many scientists. > > If the simple addition of velocities explained it all, do you not think > that the physicists of the time would have realised that? Oh, they did, lady.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50c737c0-7a01-4192-abdc-e663c6594e41n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614716 |
On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 7:28:49 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Friday, July 7, 2023 at 9:43:30 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote: > >> On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying? > >> > >> I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > >> You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > >> ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments > >> before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a > >> constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves > >> "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" > >> > >> Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light > >> as a constant. All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of > >> light is some unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light > >> (and the first postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result > >> was SR. > >> > >> I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. > >> A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. > >> > >> The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also > >> doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to > >> prove a certain form of aether didn't exist. > > The physicists were wondering whether it shared the velocity of the source, and even Michelson in 1913, when he did his moving mirrors experiment (as I have mentioned here) thought it did not. Interpreting the experiments as showing light speed is constant does not mean they necessarily showed that. It is now clear they did not because simple additive velocities suffice, as has been shown by many scientists. > > If the simple addition of velocities explained it all, do you not think > that the physicists of the time would have realised that? > > Of course, the results of Fizeau's experiment, performed several decades > before MMX, were already a problem for a model based on simple addition. > > Sylvia. Please see (if you are willing to look through the telescope): “Optical Fizeau Experiment with Moving Water is Explained without Fresnel's Hypothesis and Contradicts Special Relativity” “Abstract Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 11:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <u8dstv$23eau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614764 |
On 2023-07-08 17:15:50 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > Please see (if you are willing to look through the telescope): “Optical > Fizeau Experiment with Moving Water is Explained without Fresnel's > Hypothesis and Contradicts Special Relativity” The article is based on an error. In its Introduction it says "Although that time Doppler has already showed that the light changes its frequency when enters moving medium,". In the Fizeau experiment light does not change its frequency and Doppler did not show otherwise. The frequency change is seen by a moving observer but there is no moving observer in the Fizeau experiment. The light source and the screen where the interference pattern is seen are both stationary. > “Abstract > Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special > relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving > medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam > interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag > hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering > beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. That sentence mentiones the Doppler effect but the claim is false. > Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes > Einstein's theory of relativity" Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MDRvjfVHwHY2KYmKpSvn7HWTbEg@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614716 |
Le 08/07/2023 à 04:28, Sylvia Else a écrit : > On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > Of course, the results of Fizeau's experiment, performed several decades > before MMX, were already a problem for a model based on simple addition. > > Sylvia. he scientific problem today is twofold. On one side the cranks, which pose w=v+u, and on the other the physicists, who pose w=(v+u)/(1+v.u/c²) Some: mad; others: shy. Thereupon comes Dr. Hachel, and proposes equations worthy of interest: he is threatened with death. Don't laugh, friends. It is reality. In the meantime, physicists, researchers, lovers of the truth and beauty of relativistic science may prefer a truer and more complete equation. So I leave this to them. <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MDRvjfVHwHY2KYmKpSvn7HWTbEg@jntp/Data.Media:1> They can have fun looking for everything according to angles or speeds. The beauty and perfection of the equation will remain. "Heaven and earth will pass away, my words will absolutely not pass away." Jesus Christ Some concepts, some equations are eternal. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-09 18:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kh04p3Fmuk0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614835 |
On 2023-07-09 15:09:02 +0000, Richard Hachel said: > Le 08/07/2023 à 04:28, Sylvia Else a écrit : >> On 08-July-23 4:16 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >> Of course, the results of Fizeau's experiment, performed several >> decades before MMX, were already a problem for a model based on simple >> addition. >> >> Sylvia. > > he scientific problem today is twofold. > On one side the cranks, which pose w=v+u, and on the other the > physicists, who pose w=(v+u)/(1+v.u/c²) > Some: mad; others: shy. > > Thereupon comes Dr. Hachel, and proposes equations worthy of interest: > he is threatened with death. Who has threatened "Dr." Hachel with death? When? When is "Dr." Hachel going to reveal which university awarded his "doctorate"? When? What was the title of his thesis? For that matter, when is "Dr." Hachel going to reveal where he taught for 22 years, and in what capacity? I don't doubt that Dr. Lengrand has the qualifications necessary for practising medicine in Arras, or wherever it is, but that's irrelevant: it doesn't qualify "Dr." Hachel for claiming to be an expert on physics. > Don't laugh, friends. It is reality. If it's reality, then you can easily provide some evidence. > In the meantime, physicists, researchers, lovers of the truth and > beauty of relativistic science may prefer a truer and more complete > equation. > > So I leave this to them. Except that you won't. You'll keep coming back with more nonsense. > <http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?MDRvjfVHwHY2KYmKpSvn7HWTbEg@jntp/Data.Media:1> > > They can have fun looking for everything according to angles or speeds. > > The beauty and perfection of the equation will remain. > > "Heaven and earth will pass away, my words will absolutely not pass > away." Jesus Christ > > Some concepts, some equations are eternal. > > R.H. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 22:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qdiq1a.1klmxtpedonzpN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #614643 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have > > to accuse anyone of lying? > > > I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments > before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a > constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves > "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" You really should drop this silly naive empirism. It is completely unhistorical. Nothing even remotely like it happened. > Experiments before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light > as a constant. Idem. If you disagree, cite such a measurement. > All Einstein did was to say "what if a constant speed of light is some > unknown law of physics?" He took a constant speed of light (and the first > postulate) and worked out what would happen. The result was SR. That is more like it. Your 'all he did' greatly underestimates the depth of his fundamental insight though. > I will type the next sentence very slowly so that you can understand it. > A constant speed of light was already known before Einstein came along. 'Known'? And by whom? > The MMX doesn't prove the speed of light is a constant. The MMX also > doesn't prove the speed of light isn't a constant. All it did was to > prove a certain form of aether didn't exist. That is not the most conservative conclusion. It showed, like Michelson said, that the aether was fully dragged by the Earth. (but that conflicted with other experiments) So the result was confusion all around. Non-existence of the aether didn't arise until Einstein 1905, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfd6fbe8-03af-469f-89b0-af5f039b466en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614676 |
On Friday, 7 July 2023 at 22:13:04 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <vol...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > On 7/6/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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. Do you have > > > to accuse anyone of lying? > > > > > I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > > You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > > ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments > > before Einstein's paper always measured the speed of light as a > > constant. The physicists of the time were saying to themselves > > "Experiments show the speed of light is a constant. How/why?" > You really should drop this silly naive empirism. > It is completely unhistorical. > Nothing even remotely like it happened. :)))))) Listen to your fellow idiot, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Duston Pantelakos <eats@sonknkdt.tt> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u89va8$3ef9k$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #614643 |
Volney wrote: > I accuse the liars of lying because that is what they (you) are doing. > You are claiming that Einstein pulled a constant speed of light from his > ass and proclaimed it to be true. That's not what happened. Experiments khazar goy zelenske is about to be fucked up by close people. *_Ukrainian_Man_Asks_Security_Services_To_Investigate_Zelensky_* https://b%69%74%63hute.com/video/0pIoUTHS0vQB watch what the war criminal, gay actor khazar goy zelenske, says at 29:40 *_UK_Column_News_-_7th_July_2023_* https://b%69%74%63hute.com/video/272rtTJyNgNQ he says, *_he_said_it_* before February 24 2022, and *_the_west_still_gave_him_hard_weapons_*. Hence the fucking *_collective_west_knew_it_* in advance! Correspondingly, if the west dies from the face of the earth, is definitely not for nothing. This goy motherfucker *_dictates_the_politics_of_nazi_nato_* long ago!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 20:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edf9325f-ad6f-4826-a408-00aab4a658a2n@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?) In any case many relativists also assert it, that Einstein asserted it. That's why it is criticized as unwarranted and not supported by the MMX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-08 13:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <kgs4e3F3br5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614600 |
On 07-July-23 1:20 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen 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?) > In any case many relativists also assert it, that Einstein asserted it. That's why it is criticized as unwarranted and not supported by the MMX. If you have an issue with people who assert it, take it up with them. If there's a claim that Einstein asserted it, then take it up with the person making the claim. The assertion is not part of special relativity, and raising it here is being pointlessly argumentative. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 22:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgpgkdFl0g0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614596 |
On 7/6/2023 8:07 PM, 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?) Because that's he only way they can rationalize their beliefs. Appeal to authority seems to help them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e313d7e5-efbb-4e72-9460-9a030f01c790n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614603 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:54:57 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote: > On 7/6/2023 8:07 PM, 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?) > Because that's he only way they can rationalize their beliefs. > > Appeal to authority seems to help them. The important point is that if the second postulate doesn't explain the MMX it doesn't explain anything and it does not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 01:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d881fbcf-bbc9-4ae0-ba3a-e1ea17ef5b20n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614603 |
> On 7/6/2023 8:07 PM, Volney wrote: > > 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. Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie, stupid Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-06 21:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a63a660-e170-435a-a24b-061c41090d30n@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?) A steel man of the first postulate: Galileo said everything in the ships cabin shares the velocity of the source. A steel man f he second postulate: Einstein said light does not. The second does not follow from the first.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-07 10:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kgqo84Fr14dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614605 |
On 7/6/2023 11:13 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen 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?) > A steel man of the first postulate: Galileo said everything in the ships cabin shares the velocity of the source. > A steel man f he second postulate: Einstein said light does not. > The second does not follow from the first. Here's the problem in a nutshell. Science is always logical. Even heliocentrism made sense in the context of what was being observed and known at the time. The difficulty of "makes no sense" occurs because we don't have *all* the facts.. Science always runs ahead of common knowledge. For example, Einstein explained (maybe you didn't catch it) that an "aether" transmits light through space, and explained that he didn't know what that was. See his 1920 speech to which I've posted a link several times. I'll say once again, new advances may topple relativity, I don't know for sure whether or not something/someone will, but that hasn't happened yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web