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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380020 > unrolled thread

Re: Differences between LET and SR.

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 20:45 -0700
    Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 19:57 +1100
      Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 05:50 -0700
        Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 08:00 +1100
          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 15:41 -0700
            Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:50 +1100
              Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 06:19 -0700
                Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-28 09:14 +1100
                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 20:54 -0700
                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-28 04:38 +0000
                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:09 +1100
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-29 04:50 +0000
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 11:03 +0200
                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:12 +1100
                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-30 08:55 -0500
                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:22 -0500
                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:24 +0200
                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-31 07:44 +1100
                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-31 19:37 +0200
                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 08:21 +1100
                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 21:28 -0700
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-01 20:15 +1100
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 05:12 -0700
                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 18:59 +0200
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:04 +0000
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:07 +0000
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 10:11 -0700
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:15 +0000
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 10:14 -0700
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:22 +0000
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:28 +1100
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:48 -0500
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 14:39 +0200
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 13:05 +0000
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 10:23 +1000
                                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 22:00 -0500
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:23 +1000
                                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:33 -0700
                                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 09:55 -0700
                                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:44 -0700
                                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0700
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 00:02 -0700
                                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 13:25 +0200
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-03 08:16 -0700
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:47 +1000
                                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-04 19:36 +0200
                                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:54 +1000
                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 08:49 -0700
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 11:57 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#380020 — Re: Differences between LET and SR.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 23/03/16 13:22, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > Henry Wilson, being a properly qualified physicist rather than a
> >
> > It is GOOD to want to know more, to find out the "why" of things -- I
> > do, too.  But I don't fight against reality like you do.  You, for
> > example, refuse to believe that the speed of light is invariant.
> > That idea flies in the face of common sense.  Why ever would that be?
> > Whatever could CAUSE such a ridiculous thing?  So you reject the
> > profusion of evidence that supports invariance and refutes ballistic
> > theory in favor of a half-baked speculation about variable stars that
> > is bilious nonsense.
> 
> You are such an ignorant little shit

Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-)

But I accept reality whereas you don't.  That makes you amazingly delusional.

> that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing
> speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness.

That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse!
Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines
of emission and absorption.  The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of
the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling
due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent.  This
is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#380026

On 24/03/16 14:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:

>>
>> You are such an ignorant little shit
>
> Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-)
>
> But I accept reality whereas you don't.  That makes you amazingly delusional.
>
>> that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing
>> speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness.
>
> That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse!
> Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines
> of emission and absorption.  The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of
> the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling
> due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent.  This
> is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness.

Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed!

<plonk>

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

#380034

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:57:02 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 24/03/16 14:45, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4:59:25 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > You are such an ignorant little shit
> >
> > Well, yeah, I'm ignorant, but I ain't little :-)
> >
> > But I accept reality whereas you don't.  That makes you amazingly
> > delusional.
> >
> > > that you wouldn't even realize that your own idol's concept of 'closing
> > > speed' can cause perfectly stable stars to appear to vary in brightness.
> >
> > That is the silliest idea ever to be hatched by an inmate at a nuthouse!
> > Everyone knows that stars emit mostly blackbody radiation, with minor lines
> > of emission and absorption.  The lines Doppler-shift, but the brightness of
> > the star is not materially affected by motion; i.e., there is no cancelling
> > due to interference because the light is not even close to coherent.  This
> > is why your whole assertion is pure foolishness.
> 
> Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed!
> 
> <plonk>

:-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he
insults and runs away.

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

#380094

On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>>
>> Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed!
>>
>> <plonk>
>
> :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he
> insults and runs away.

One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a 
recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches 
from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith.
It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the 
same goes for all other dingleberries.

<final plonk>

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

#380101

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed!
> > >
> > > <plonk>
> >
> > :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he
> > insults and runs away.
> 
> One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a 
> recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches 
> from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith.
> It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the 
> same goes for all other dingleberries.
> 
> <final plonk>

He was describing YOU, delusional one.  You have NEVER posted a truly
scientific thought on this board.  Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is
supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence.

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

#380253

On 25/03/16 09:41, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>
>> On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under your bed!
>>>>
>>>> <plonk>
>>>
>>> :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory, he
>>> insults and runs away.
>>
>> One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a
>> recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches
>> from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on faith.
>> It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...and the
>> same goes for all other dingleberries.
>>
>> <final plonk>
>
> He was describing YOU, delusional one.  You have NEVER posted a truly
> scientific thought on this board.  Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is
> supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence.

Idiot! Go and read your bible....

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

#380257

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On 25/03/16 09:41, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 3:00:39 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24/03/16 23:50, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot! Clueless idiot! ...keep looking for those atheists under
> > > > > your bed!
> > > > >
> > > > > <plonk>
> > > >
> > > > :-)) When "Henry" is faced with rational refutation of his pet theory,
> > > > he insults and runs away.
> > >
> > > One last comment. A psychologist on the radio yesterday was discussing a
> > > recent finding that part of the brain shuts down when a person switches
> > > from scientific thought to a mental state which operates entirely on
> > > faith.  It looks as though yours is permanently stuck in the latter...
> > > and the same goes for all other dingleberries.
> > >
> > > <final plonk>
> >
> > He was describing YOU, delusional one.  You have NEVER posted a truly
> > scientific thought on this board.  Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is
> > supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence.
> 
> Idiot! Go and read your bible....

So "plonk" is not final and neither is "final plonk" :-)))

Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater
speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific
evidence."

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

#380293

On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:

>> > > <final plonk>
>> >
>> > He was describing YOU, delusional one.  You have NEVER posted a truly
>> > scientific thought on this board.  Your stupid BaTHwater speculation is
>> > supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific evidence.
>> 
>> Idiot! Go and read your bible....
>
>So "plonk" is not final and neither is "final plonk" :-)))
>
>Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater
>speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific
>evidence."

Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh.

<terminal plonk>

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

#380307

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:14:56 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater
> > speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific
> > evidence."
> 
> Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh.

Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence.

> <terminal plonk>

And we do hope it's true this time :-)

"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."
--  Oscar Wilde

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

#380310

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 4:14:56 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 06:19:55 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Calling people names doesn't change the fact that "Your stupid BaTHwater
>> > speculation is supported solely of faith because it is refuted by scientific
>> > evidence."
>> 
>> Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh.

>Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence.

>> <terminal plonk>

>And we do hope it's true this time :-)

It's fun to watch Ralph squirm, with his head buried in the sand...

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

#380395

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:38:21 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moron-y) wrote:

>>> 
>>> Idiot, there is NO evidence against BaTh.
>
>>Denial of evidence does not remove the evidence.
>
>>> <terminal plonk>
>
>>And we do hope it's true this time :-)
>
>It's fun to watch Henry squirm, with his head buried in the sand...

No ned for me to squirm, Moron-y. I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What
is more, I know that none can exist.

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

#380401

HGW <xxx@....> writes:

>On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:38:21 +0000 (UTC), moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>(Michael Moron-y) wrote:

>>It's fun to watch Henry squirm, with his head buried in the sand...

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you really are stupid, aren't you, Ralph.  Ralph
Rabbidge, I told you repeatedly not to edit my quotes, Ralph.  Ralph, I
did not write anything about Henry Wilson squirming, I was talking about
watching you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, squirm. Ralph, as you know, Ralph,
Henry G. Wilson is a fine scientist, a product of the best universities
Australia has to offer, Ralph M. Rabbidge.  But Ralph, Henry G. Wilson
never posts here, Ralph, because he is much too smart to argue with
anti-Einstein kooks such as yourself, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.  So Ralph, I
have no reason to talk about Henry Wilson squirming, Ralph.

>No ned for me to squirm, Moron-y. I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What
>is more, I know that none can exist.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that's because you keep burying your head when 
many people provides you with the evidence, Ralph.  Paul Anderson in
particular has produced excellent evidence for you, Ralph Rabbidge.
If only that you bothered to actually read it, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

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

#380410

On 29.03.2016 01:09, HGW wrote:
>
> I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What
> is more, I know that none can exist.

Let's see what a Doctor of science has
to say about the BaTh:


|On 21.10.2014 23:39, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HG Wilson wrote:
|> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:46:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
|>
|>> So the BaTh is unfalsifiable.
|>> That's a good thing, isn't it?
|>
|> Truth is indeed unfalsifiable by definition...

So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge DSc
the BaTh is unfalsifiable and as the fully
qualified physicist obviously will know,
the BaTh is thus no theory of physics.

"True by definition"?
"No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"?
  Must be a religion.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#380444

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:03:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
wrote:

>On 29.03.2016 01:09, HGW wrote:
>
>
>So according to HG Wilson DSc
>the BaTh is unfalsifiable and as the fully
>qualified physicist obviously will know,
>the BaTh is thus no theory of physics.

Paul B. does it hurt you so much to be told that Einstein's plagiarized theory
is no different from Lorentz's and that both versions presume the existence of
an absolute aether?

>"True by definition"?
>"No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"?
>  Must be a religion.

Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that.

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

#380492

On 3/29/16 3/29/16   5:12 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:03:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
> wrote:
>> "True by definition"?
>> "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"?
>>   Must be a religion.
>
> Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that.

So HGW is the biggest "dingleberry" of them all. Because he wrote:

> [about evidence that refutes BaTh] I know that none can exist.

This explicitly shows his personal religious fervor about his fantasies (which 
he calls "BaTh").

In everything he writes, Wilson shows that he is both ignorant and illiterate 
about physics, and that he is not at all a scientist. He is so bound up in his 
personal fantasies that he doesn't even realize how damning his own words are.


Tom Roberts

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

#380495

On 3/30/2016 8:55 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> In everything he writes, Wilson shows that he is both ignorant and
> illiterate about physics, and that he is not at all a scientist. He is
> so bound up in his personal fantasies that he doesn't even realize how
> damning his own words are.

If Henry Wilson were serious, then I'd agree with you. But he's not 
serious. He is a Chain-Yanker by avocation, sometimes what is called a 
Troll on the internet.

He says things he knows are not true -- and the only motivation to do 
that is either compulsive lying or trying to arouse a response. He says 
things in absolutes without justification. He makes up history. He 
flings propaganda.

At best, he deserves only an occasional comment.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#380500

On 30.03.2016 00:12, HGW wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:03:49 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 29.03.2016 01:09, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> I know of no evidence that refutes BaTh. What
>>> is more, I know that none can exist.
>>
>> Let's see what a Doctor of science has
>> to say about the BaTh:
>>
>> |On 21.10.2014 23:39, Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka HG Wilson wrote:
>> |> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:46:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> |>
>> |>> So the BaTh is unfalsifiable.
>> |>> That's a good thing, isn't it?
>> |>
>> |> Truth is indeed unfalsifiable by definition...
>>
>> So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge DSc
>> the BaTh is unfalsifiable and as the fully
>> qualified physicist obviously will know,
>> the BaTh is thus no theory of physics.

Or doesn't he know?

> Paul B. does it hurt you so much to be told that Einstein's plagiarized theory
> is no different from Lorentz's and that both versions presume the existence of
> an absolute aether?

Could it be that a fully qualified physicist and DSc
who studied math and physics for 11 years at the best
universities in Australia is ignorant of the fact
that a theory of physics must be falsifiable?

That's hardly possible.

So could it be that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson
aka HKW is no physicist and never studied math and physics
and is no Doctor of science?
Could Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson aka HKW be a fake?

>> "True by definition"?
>> "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"?
>>   Must be a religion.
>
> Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that.

I see.
Only dingleberries claim that BaTh is unfalsifiable
and "true by definition", and only dingleberries
state that "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist".

Thanks for clearing up who those mysterious 'dingleberries' are.
But since you are using the phrase in plural, who are the others?
Or are you the only one?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#380526

On 31/03/16 03:24, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 30.03.2016 00:12, HGW DSc. wrote:

>
>>> "True by definition"? "No evidence that refutes BaTh can exist"?
>>> Must be a religion.
>>
>> Sorry Paul, only dinglberries operate like that.
>
> I see. Only dingleberries claim that BaTh is unfalsifiable and "true
> by definition", and only dingleberries state that "No evidence that
> refutes BaTh can exist".

There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything else.

All experimental evidence supports that fact.

> Thanks for clearing up who those mysterious 'dingleberries' are. But
> since you are using the phrase in plural, who are the others? Or are
> you the only one?

Paul, I don't like calling people names but you are such a nice little
group of persistent dullheads that the name seems to suit you eminently.

Einstein's theory is just a warped version of LET and it certainly 
assumes the existent of an absolute frame in the form of a aether medium 
which serves to unify all light from all sources.

If any aspect of SR is correct, then you should all be trying hard to 
find out more about the imaginary aether on which your favorite theory 
depends.

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

#380565

On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
>
> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything else.
>
> All experimental evidence supports that fact.

OK, Ralph.
Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
that support the invariance of the speed of light:
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

Now it's your turn.
Please specify some of "all the experimental
evidence" that support that the speed of light
depend on the speed of the source.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#380581

On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
>>
>> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
>> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
>> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
>> else.
>>
>> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
>
> OK, Ralph.
> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...

> Now it's your turn.
> Please specify some of "all the experimental
> evidence" that support that the speed of light
> depend on the speed of the source.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web