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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #617089 > unrolled thread

Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate

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

Contents

  Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-08 01:53 -0700
    Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Wallace Awturkhanoff <fuhc@fhacllat.ew> - 2023-08-08 14:33 +0000
    Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-08 09:09 -0700
    Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 09:46 -0700
      Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 12:53 -0500
      Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:11 -0700
        Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 15:23 -0500
      Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-09 11:27 +0300
      Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-11 08:59 -0500
        Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-11 18:04 +0200
        Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-11 18:08 +0200
          Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 12:56 -0700
    Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 10:10 -0700
      Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 12:54 -0500
        Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 11:08 -0700
          Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-08 15:17 -0500
    Re: Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 06:29 -0700

#617089 — Why Antirelativists Worship Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate

Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory:

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#617108

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the
> velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
> stationary luminiferous ether."

𝐋𝐆𝐁𝐓𝐐+ 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧'𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐮𝐤𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐚
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/580996-russians-not-human-ukraine-transgender/

"and that the key difference 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐔𝐤𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 is “humanity.”
	- tell that to civilians 𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐎𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚 𝐢𝐧 2014 𝐚𝐧𝐝 9 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟
𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬

"Russian troops are not human" says 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.

Ukro soldiers were very human during WW2 when 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲_𝐦𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝_200_000_𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐬 and 
1.5_𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧_𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬. They were also brutal, 𝐬𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜_𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬_𝐚𝐭_𝐒𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐛𝐨𝐫, 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 
𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬 and 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐉𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬.

Hitler's Nazi hoards also posed as civilized Europeans ...

Transgenders are not human.

fault of the fucking putina. If not traitor, then he is an idiot. You take 
out the "𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀", from the very beginning. That's where the war 
comes from, 𝗻𝗼𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲.

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

#617119

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory: 
> 
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Wonderful Pentcho, just wonderful.  I have spent time doodling the train car with the man inside bouncing two tennis balls off opposite walls and those balls arriving back at the thrower simultaneously.    Thanks for the insight.

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

#617121

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory: 
> 
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
It is true that many antirelativists are etherists. Yet, it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity of the source, causing the Doppler effect. Then why do we frequently hear that the wave theory of light has light independent of the source? Michelson thought light was independent of the source in 1913 in his paper on rotating mirror interferometers. Why would light be the only wave exempt from the law of physics that everything shares the velocity of the source?

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

#617127

On 8/8/2023 11:46 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory:
>>
>> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>>
>> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>>
>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

> It is true that many antirelativists are etherists. Yet, it 
> was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity 
> of the source, causing the Doppler effect. 

That is not what causes the Doppler effect.

> Then why do we frequently hear that the wave theory of light 
> has light independent of the source? Michelson thought light was 
> independent of the source in 1913 in his paper on rotating mirror
> interferometers. Why would light be the only wave exempt from the 
> law of physics that everything shares the velocity of the source?

You're certainly lost.

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

#617134

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:46:26 AM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Yet, it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the 
> velocity of the source, causing the Doppler effect. 

Huh?

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

#617146

On 8/8/2023 1:11 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:46:26 AM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
>> Yet, it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the
>> velocity of the source, causing the Doppler effect.
> 
> Huh?

That's why he usually doesn't give arguments in support of his
beliefs, because most of the time he gets it completely wrong.

Laurence just argues and snipes.

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

#617163

On 2023-08-08 16:46:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> It is true that many antirelativists are etherists. Yet, it was
> already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity of
> the source, causing the Doppler effect. Then why do we frequently
> hear that the wave theory of light has light independent of the
> source?

In 1850 it was generally thought that light moves in aether as
sound moves in air. If so, then, according to the understanding
at the time, the motion of both light and sound had to be
independent of the motion of the source. Both were also seen
analogous to waves in water surface, which also move independently
of the source.

That motion of water surface waves or sound is independent of the
motion of the source is fairly easy to check experimentally. To
test the same about light is much harder but can be (and has been)
done.

Mikko

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

#617356

On 8/8/23 11:46 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity 
> of the source, causing the Doppler effect.

You just keep displaying your personal ignorance of basic physics. Sound
waves DO NOT "share the velocity of the source" -- the speed of sound
waves in air is ~343 m/s RELATIVE TO THE AIR, independent of the speed
of the source (relative to the air).

As it does not happen, that cannot be the "cause of the Doppler effect".

Grow up. LEARN SOMETHING about the subject before attempting to write
about it.

Tom Roberts

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

#617370

On 2023-08-11 13:59:55 +0000, Tom Roberts said:

> On 8/8/23 11:46 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity of 
>> the source, causing the Doppler effect.
> 
> You just keep displaying your personal ignorance of basic physics. Sound
> waves DO NOT "share the velocity of the source" -- the speed of sound
> waves in air is ~343 m/s RELATIVE TO THE AIR, independent of the speed
> of the source (relative to the air).
> 
> As it does not happen, that cannot be the "cause of the Doppler effect".
> 
> Grow up. LEARN SOMETHING about the subject before attempting to write
> about it.

That's not his way. Remember how he "reviewed" a book (Cosmology in 
Crisis?: The Fallacy of Universal Expansion by Kenneth Gonder) at 
Amazon without bothering to read it first. This "review" has been 
edited since I mentioned the original version, posted on 8th July, 
which read as follows: "I just bought it, but I already know it's good 
because I read a previous book by him. Thumbs up!"


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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

#617372

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 8/8/23 11:46 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity
> > of the source, causing the Doppler effect.
> 
> You just keep displaying your personal ignorance of basic physics. Sound
> waves DO NOT "share the velocity of the source" -- the speed of sound
> waves in air is ~343 m/s RELATIVE TO THE AIR, independent of the speed
> of the source (relative to the air).

Indeed. The first reliable measurements of the speeds of sound
were done by firing cannon on hilltops. (in suitable weather)

Observers noted the delay between seen muzzle flash and heard sound.
The delay didn't depend on their orientation with respect to the cannon.

Jan

FYA: a 'noon gun' is still fired daily at Kaapstad, South Africa,
every day since 1806.
They are said to be the oldest still functioning guns in the world.
Captains wanting to synchronise their chronometers with the observatory
had their telescopes trained on it, rather than wait for the sound.

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

#617485

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:08:31 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 
> 
> > On 8/8/23 11:46 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > it was already known circa 1850 that sound waves share the velocity 
> > > of the source, causing the Doppler effect. 
> > 
> > You just keep displaying your personal ignorance of basic physics. Sound 
> > waves DO NOT "share the velocity of the source" -- the speed of sound 
> > waves in air is ~343 m/s RELATIVE TO THE AIR, independent of the speed 
> > of the source (relative to the air).
> Indeed. The first reliable measurements of the speeds of sound 
> were done by firing cannon on hilltops. (in suitable weather) 
> 
> Observers noted the delay between seen muzzle flash and heard sound. 
> The delay didn't depend on their orientation with respect to the cannon. 
> 
> Jan 
> 
> FYA: a 'noon gun' is still fired daily at Kaapstad, South Africa, 
> every day since 1806. 
> They are said to be the oldest still functioning guns in the world. 
> Captains wanting to synchronise their chronometers with the observatory 
> had their telescopes trained on it, rather than wait for the sound.

Relativists?
Look at retrograde motion. Begin to move yourself on your world line
and there is an equal but opposite appearance around you.
How did you give the other frame your motion? No. It is just
an appearance of it. The real creates that.

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

#617122

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory: 
> 
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
I missed your posts for weeks now and so did some true believers.

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

#617128

On 8/8/2023 12:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory:
>>
>> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>>
>> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>>
>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

> I missed your posts for weeks now and so did some true believers.

By that you must mean those who disbelieve your idols.

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

#617132

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 10:56:28 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 12:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> >> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory: 
> >> 
> >> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
> >> 
> >> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> >> 
> >> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> 
> > I missed your posts for weeks now and so did some true believers.
> By that you must mean those who disbelieve your idols.
If you would stop drinking the Kool Aid...

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

#617144

On 8/8/2023 1:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 10:56:28 AM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 8/8/2023 12:10 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 1:53:51 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory:
>>>>
>>>> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>>>>
>>>> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>>>>
>>>> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>
>>> I missed your posts for weeks now and so did some true believers.
>> By that you must mean those who disbelieve your idols.
> If you would stop drinking the Kool Aid...

Are you telling me your Kool Aid is somehow better?

Believe that whydontcha?

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

#617656

On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 4:53:51 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Antirelativists repudiate any aspect of Einstein's theory except for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Actually, they worship this postulate. Why? Because they are all etherists and Einstein "borrowed" the postulate from the ether theory: 
> 
> Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
> 
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Einstein failed to come up with the idea of wave-packets instead of photons particles. Wave-packets are formed by the absolute motion of the source in a structured ether called the E-Matrix. Read my book "Model Mechanics:The Final Theory" in the Library of books in Amazon. .

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web