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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457428 > unrolled thread

The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light

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

Contents

  The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-03 10:42 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-05-03 23:00 +0200
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 06:09 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-14 20:02 +0000
    Re:The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 08:02 +0200
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 06:12 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:30 +0200
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 07:07 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 07:25 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:35 +0200
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:15 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 16:01 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 16:26 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-04 16:22 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 18:13 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 04:18 +0000
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 04:49 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 05:43 -0700
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 06:43 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-05 07:06 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-05 09:11 -0700
                Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 07:28 -0700
                  Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 07:39 -0700
                    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 12:59 -0700
                      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-06 20:01 +0000
                      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 13:33 -0700
                        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-06 18:57 -0700
                          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0700
                            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 04:57 -0700
                              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 07:15 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-05 16:33 +0000
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 10:56 -0700
    Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 17:54 -0700
      Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-07 07:27 -0700
        Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 09:38 -0700
          Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 12:22 -0700
            Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:00 -0700
              Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:30 -0700
                Re: The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-07 14:55 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#457533

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:43:15 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:44:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame
> > > > and another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just
> > > > plain STUPID, which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I
> > > > realize that your head is full of dog poop, but you just reached a
> > > > new low on the intelligence scale.
> > > 
> > > Moron,
> > 
> > Imbecile.
> > 
> > > the wavelength is not effected during transit.
> > 
> > Confused yammering by a dog-poop-infested mind.  Wavelength invariance is
> > refuted by astronomers, physicists and people who have their heads screwed
> > on right.  Your, OTOH, is filled with dog poop.
> > 
> > > Therefore, the original source wavelength times the number of waves
> > > arrived per second (measured frequency) is the closing speed of the
> > > arriving waves.
> > 
> > If what you yammer were true, then it would be just fine to measure the
> > wavelength at the detector, too, so there's no rational excuse to blather
> > about the source wavelength.  Unfortunately, your butt-headed bull plop
> > is dead wrong since the wavelength measured by the detector is NOT the
> > same as the source wavelength, despicable lying weasel.  Gee, you are
> > stupid.
> 
> Moron,

Imbecile.

> the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s frame and
> all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured wavelength in
> combination with measured frequency for any light source in the same frame
> will give you c.

Which is the way it should be done.

> That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the incoming
> speed of light.

Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-stupid
thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are so stupid.

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

#457572

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:43:15 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 6:44:00 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:14:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Measuring a speed by taking one term (like frequency) from one frame
> > > > > and another term (like wavelength) from a different frame is just
> > > > > plain STUPID, which is what you just proved yourself to be.  I
> > > > > realize that your head is full of dog poop, but you just reached a
> > > > > new low on the intelligence scale.
> > > > 
> > > > Moron,
> > > 
> > > Imbecile.
> > > 
> > > > the wavelength is not effected during transit.
> > > 
> > > Confused yammering by a dog-poop-infested mind.  Wavelength invariance is
> > > refuted by astronomers, physicists and people who have their heads screwed
> > > on right.  Your, OTOH, is filled with dog poop.
> > > 
> > > > Therefore, the original source wavelength times the number of waves
> > > > arrived per second (measured frequency) is the closing speed of the
> > > > arriving waves.
> > > 
> > > If what you yammer were true, then it would be just fine to measure the
> > > wavelength at the detector, too, so there's no rational excuse to blather
> > > about the source wavelength.  Unfortunately, your butt-headed bull plop
> > > is dead wrong since the wavelength measured by the detector is NOT the
> > > same as the source wavelength, despicable lying weasel.  Gee, you are
> > > stupid.
> > 
> > Moron,
> 
> Imbecile.
> 
> > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s frame and
> > all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured wavelength in
> > combination with measured frequency for any light source in the same frame
> > will give you c.
> 
> Which is the way it should be done.

But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light. The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.

> 
> > That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the incoming
> > speed of light.
> 
> Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-stupid
> thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are so stupid.

Moron, that’s the only way to measure the speed of incoming light.

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

#457574

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:29:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s frame and
> > > all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured wavelength in
> > > combination with measured frequency for any light source in the same frame
> > > will give you c.
> > 
> > Which is the way it should be done.
> 
> But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light.

Below you admit that it is c.

> The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and
> we know that all local light sources have speed of c.

So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.

> > > That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the incoming
> > > speed of light.
> > 
> > Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-stupid
> > thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are so stupid.
> 
> Moron,

Imbecile.

> that’s the only way to measure the speed of incoming light.

You just admitted above that we always measure the incoming speed of light
as c, which your abysmally-stupid mixing of frames predicts otherwise.

Gee you are stupider than dirt.

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

#457585

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:29:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s frame and
> > > > all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured wavelength in
> > > > combination with measured frequency for any light source in the same frame
> > > > will give you c.
> > > 
> > > Which is the way it should be done.
> > 
> > But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light.
> 
> Below you admit that it is c.

The incoming light becomes a local source. All local sources are defined to have speed of c.

> 
> > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s frame and
> > we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> 
> So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.

It is defined to be c. The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)
OR
c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> 
> > > > That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the incoming
> > > > speed of light.
> > > 
> > > Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-stupid
> > > thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are so stupid.
> > 
> > Moron,
> 
> Imbecile.
> 
> > that’s the only way to measure the speed of incoming light.
> 
> You just admitted above that we always measure the incoming speed of light
> as c, which your abysmally-stupid mixing of frames predicts otherwise.
> 
> Gee you are stupider than dirt.

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

#457587

kenseto wrote:

> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:29:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>> >
>> > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s
>> > > > frame and all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured
>> > > > wavelength in combination with measured frequency for any light
>> > > > source in the same frame will give you c.
>> > > 
>> > > Which is the way it should be done.
>> > 
>> > But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light.
>> 
>> Below you admit that it is c.
> 
> The incoming light becomes a local source. All local sources are defined
> to have speed of c.

Actually they pretend measurements, not definition.

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

#457588

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:29:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s
> > > > > frame and all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured
> > > > > wavelength in combination with measured frequency for any light
> > > > > source in the same frame will give you c.
> > > > 
> > > > Which is the way it should be done.
> > > 
> > > But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light.
> > 
> > Below you admit that it is c.
> 
> The incoming light becomes a local source.

Repeating bull plop doesn't make it true.

> All local sources are defined to have speed of c.

So you believe all light bulbs are traveling at c?  :-))

> > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > > frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> > 
> > So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.
> 
> It is defined to be c.

NO, stupid ignorant lying weasel, it is MEASURED to be c.  You are such
a confused purveyor of bull plop.

> The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
> c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)

That is complete bull plop, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.

> OR
> c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 

That doesn't even have the correct units, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.

> > > > > That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the
> > > > > incoming speed of light.
> > > > 
> > > > Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-
> > > > stupid thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are
> > > > so stupid.
> > > 
> > > Moron,
> > 
> > Imbecile.
> > 
> > > that’s the only way to measure the speed of incoming light.
> > 
> > You just admitted above that we always measure the incoming speed of light
> > as c, which your abysmally-stupid mixing of frames predicts otherwise.
> > 
> > Gee you are stupider than dirt.

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

#457597

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:40:01 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:29:01 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 12:11:55 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:06:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector’s
> > > > > > frame and all light sources in the detector’s frame....measured
> > > > > > wavelength in combination with measured frequency for any light
> > > > > > source in the same frame will give you c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which is the way it should be done.
> > > > 
> > > > But that’s not a measure of the incoming speed of light.
> > > 
> > > Below you admit that it is c.
> > 
> > The incoming light becomes a local source.
> 
> Repeating bull plop doesn't make it true.
> 
> > All local sources are defined to have speed of c.
> 
> So you believe all light bulbs are traveling at c?  :-))
> 
> > > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > > > frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> > > 
> > > So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.
> > 
> > It is defined to be c.
> 
> NO, stupid ignorant lying weasel, it is MEASURED to be c.  You are such
> a confused purveyor of bull plop.

No moron it is never measured. It is defined. Gee you are stupid.
> 
> > The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
> > c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)
> 
> That is complete bull plop, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.
> 
> > OR
> > c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> 
> That doesn’t even have the correct units, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.

Moron it have the correct units. Gee you are so stupid.
> 
> > > > > > That’s why you must use the source wavelength to determine the
> > > > > > incoming speed of light.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not me, despicable imbecile.  YOU and only YOU do such an abysmally-
> > > > > stupid thing.  Mixing frames like YOU do is ALWAYS bad.  Gee you are
> > > > > so stupid.
> > > > 
> > > > Moron,
> > > 
> > > Imbecile.
> > > 
> > > > that’s the only way to measure the speed of incoming light.
> > > 
> > > You just admitted above that we always measure the incoming speed of light
> > > as c, which your abysmally-stupid mixing of frames predicts otherwise.
> > > 
> > > Gee you are stupider than dirt.

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

#457601

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:57:05 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > The incoming light becomes a local source.
> > 
> > Repeating bull plop doesn't make it true.
> > 
> > > All local sources are defined to have speed of c.
> > 
> > So you believe all light bulbs are traveling at c?  :-))
> > 
> > > > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > > > > frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> > > > 
> > > > So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.
> > > 
> > > It is defined to be c.
> > 
> > NO, stupid ignorant lying weasel, it is MEASURED to be c.  You are such
> > a confused purveyor of bull plop.
> 
> No moron

Yes, imbecile.

> it is never measured.

Stop lying, despicable fool.

> It is defined.


Gee you are stupid, and dishonest, too.

> > > The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
> > > c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)
> > 
> > That is complete bull plop, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.
> > 
> > > OR
> > > c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> > 
> > That doesn’t even have the correct units, you stupid ignorant lying
> > ignoramus.
> 
> Moron it have the correct units. Gee you are so stupid.

"It have"?  Did you flunk English as well as science?

And as you have been told by more than me, you get total bull plop when
you mix frames like that.

Gee you are a disgusting imbecile.  You give humanity a bad name.

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

#457608

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:46:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:57:05 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The incoming light becomes a local source.
> > > 
> > > Repeating bull plop doesn't make it true.
> > > 
> > > > All local sources are defined to have speed of c.
> > > 
> > > So you believe all light bulbs are traveling at c?  :-))
> > > 
> > > > > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > > > > > frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.
> > > > 
> > > > It is defined to be c.
> > > 
> > > NO, stupid ignorant lying weasel, it is MEASURED to be c.  You are such
> > > a confused purveyor of bull plop.
> > 
> > No moron
> 
> Yes, imbecile.
> 
> > it is never measured.
> 
> Stop lying, despicable fool.
> 
> > It is defined.
> 
> 
> Gee you are stupid, and dishonest, too.
> 
> > > > The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
> > > > c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)
> > > 
> > > That is complete bull plop, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.
> > > 
> > > > OR
> > > > c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> > > 
> > > That doesn’t even have the correct units, you stupid ignorant lying
> > > ignoramus.
> > 
> > Moron it have the correct units. Gee you are so stupid.
> 
> "It have"?  Did you flunk English as well as science?
> 
> And as you have been told by more than me, you get total bull plop when
> you mix frames like that.

Moron that’s the correct way of determining the speed of incoming light.

> 
> Gee you are a disgusting imbecile.  You give humanity a bad name.

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

#457614

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:57:26 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 10:46:00 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:57:05 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 1:59:45 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The incoming light becomes a local source.
> > > > 
> > > > Repeating bull plop doesn't make it true.
> > > > 
> > > > > All local sources are defined to have speed of c.
> > > > 
> > > > So you believe all light bulbs are traveling at c?  :-))
> > > > 
> > > > > > > The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer’s
> > > > > > > frame and we know that all local light sources have speed of c.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So you admit ALL measurements of the speed of light give c.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is defined to be c.
> > > > 
> > > > NO, stupid ignorant lying weasel, it is MEASURED to be c.  You are
> > > > such a confused purveyor of bull plop.
> > > 
> > > No moron
> > 
> > Yes, imbecile.
> > 
> > > it is never measured.
> > 
> > Stop lying, despicable fool.
> > 
> > > It is defined.
> > 
> > Gee you are stupid, and dishonest, too.
> > 
> > > > > The true measure of the speed of incoming light is:
> > > > > c’=c(source wavelength/measured incoming wavelength)
> > > > 
> > > > That is complete bull plop, you stupid ignorant lying ignoramus.
> > > > 
> > > > > OR
> > > > > c’=(measured incoming frequency)(source wavelength) 
> > > > 
> > > > That doesn’t even have the correct units, you stupid ignorant lying
> > > > ignoramus.
> > > 
> > > Moron it have the correct units. Gee you are so stupid.
> > 
> > "It have"?  Did you flunk English as well as science?
> > 
> > And as you have been told by more than me, you get total bull plop when
> > you mix frames like that.
> 
> Moron

Imbecile.

> that’s the correct way of determining the speed of incoming light.

No, it's not.  You are an arrogant fool.

“A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.” 
― Orrin Woodward

Gee you are a disgusting imbecile.  You give humanity a bad name.

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

#457536

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 9:43:15 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> If what you yammer were true, then it would be just fine to measure the
>> wavelength at the detector, too, so there's no rational excuse to blather
>> about the source wavelength.  Unfortunately, your butt-headed bull plop
>> is dead wrong since the wavelength measured by the detector is NOT the
>> same as the source wavelength, despicable lying weasel.  Gee, you are
>> stupid.

>Moron, the incoming light becomes a new light source in the detector's
>frame and all light sources in the detector's frame....

You just contradicted yourself, Stupid Ken. In your last reply you wrote:

>>Moron, the wavelength is not effected during transit.

So which is it, "the wavelength is not [a]ffected during transit" or "the
incoming light becomes a new light source" with a new wavelength.

One or the other, Stupid Ken.

The only part you got correct is that you're a moron.

Regardless, no science theory ever claims there is a new light source with
a new wavelength. But even if it did, if you used the original wavelength
you must multiply it by the original frequency, otherwise you're frame
jumping. Frame jumping only produces meaningless results.

So, you have to use either the original (source) wavelength times the
original source frequency, or the detector's wavelength times the
detector's frequency. Either way, the product is c.

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

#457543

kenseto wrote 

Moron, the incoming light .......

Rephrase to 

Moron, the incoming “Causality”

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

#457596

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light
> from any direction is still isotropic c.

Isotropic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
(Hint: Princess Bride)








"You keep using that word. I do not think it means
 what you think it means."

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

#457618

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:54:48 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light
> > from any direction is still isotropic c.

Isotropy does not mean the same incoming speed for different observers. For example: you can have isotropy at 300000km/second and you can have isotropy at 200000 km/second.


> 
> Isotropic
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
> (Hint: Princess Bride)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
>  what you think it means."

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

#457623

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 8:27:04 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:54:48 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > Because the SR postulate says that the incoming speed of light
> > > from any direction is still isotropic c.
> 
> Isotropy does not mean the same incoming speed for different observers.

It does for light, egregious ignoramus.

> For example: you can have isotropy at 300000km/second and you can have
> isotropy at 200000 km/second.

Irrelevant since those aren't the speed that light travels.

> > Isotropic
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
> > (Hint: Princess Bride)
> > 
> > "You keep using that word. I do not think it means
> >  what you think it means."

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

#457627

The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light ARE THE SAME BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE OPERATES USING BULK MODULUS & WAVE SPEED 

LOCALIZED CONCENTRATIONS OF MASS LOWER THE WAVE SPEED OF SPACE TIME IN ACCORDANCE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. 

AS PROVEN BY POUND REBKA, Gravity redshifts the Kinetic energy of the Space Time it is traveling through, 

(the photon is a disturbance in the medium of space time)

The photon is the (momentum of the medium itself)

The photon isn’t redshifted because “the medium IS the photon”

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

#457632

The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light ARE THE SAME BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE OPERATES USING BULK MODULUS & WAVE SPEED 

LOCALIZED CONCENTRATIONS OF MASS LOWER THE WAVE SPEED OF SPACE TIME IN ACCORDANCE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. 

AS PROVEN BY POUND REBKA, Gravity redshifts the Kinetic energy of the Space Time it is traveling through, 

(the photon is a disturbance in the medium of space time) 

The photon is the (momentum of the medium itself) 

The photon isn’t redshifted because “the medium IS the photon” 


The Photon Energy is units of (Displaced Volume or Displaced Charge Volume)


 (8.8541878e-12 farads) * c * (376.730313462 ohms) = 0.999999998 meters

((4pi m) * 8.8541878e-12 farads * hbar * c)^0.5 = 1.87554602e-18 m s A

((4pi) * (8.8541878e-12 farads) * hbar * c) / (hbar / (29.9792458 ohms)) = 0.999999998 meters

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

#457642

The Incoming speeds of light are the same as the closing speeds of light ARE THE SAME BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE OPERATES USING BULK MODULUS & WAVE SPEED 

LOCALIZED CONCENTRATIONS OF MASS LOWER THE WAVE SPEED OF SPACE TIME IN ACCORDANCE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. 

AS PROVEN BY POUND REBKA, Gravity redshifts the Kinetic energy of the Space Time it is traveling through, 

(the photon is a disturbance in the medium of space time) 

The photon is the (momentum of the medium itself) 

The photon isn’t redshifted because “the medium IS the photon” 


The Photon Energy is units of (Displaced Volume or Displaced Charge Volume) 


 (8.8541878e-12 farads) * c * (376.730313462 ohms) = 0.999999998 meters 

((4pi m^-1) * 8.8541878e-12 farads * hbar * c)^0.5 =
1.87554602e-18 coulombs

((4pi) * (8.8541878e-12 farads) * hbar * c) / (hbar / (29.9792458 ohms)) = 0.999999998 meters

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

#457645

(((4pi m^-1) * 8.8541878e-12 farads * hbar * c)^0.5) / (137.03600^0.5) = 1.60217661e-19 coulombs

Which implies that the properties & parameters of Matter are strictly Dictated by the Geometry of the Aether 


(2/3^2 /5^2 * 11 *137.035999172^2) = 1836.15569564

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BxhgqGNAyclQ1Hre2

Matter is Relativistic Ballast 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web