Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426598

Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory

From	"HGW..." <hgw@....>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory
Date	2017-07-30 19:35 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<olk98c$he$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<olj91f$n58$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oljecn$c03$4@pcls7.std.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 30/07/17 11:56, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>


<garbage nipped


  light speed is the same irrespective of
>> observer speed.
> 
>> P2 is therefore nothing but a restatement of LET's conclusions.
> 
> No, Henry, it is a statement of observation.  Every attempt at measuring
> the speed of light has resulted in the same answer, c, regardless of the
> motion of the source or observer.

The fact tghat TWLS has been measured millions of times and been found 
to always have hte same value c is proof that light is balloistic.
> 
>> Having begun in that way,
> 
> Having started with a false assumption, Ralph Rabbidge has come to a
> wrong conclusion.  Congratulations, Ralph, you just demonstrated GIGO!
> 
>   Einstein then derived the equations necessary
> 
>> Because no mention of any absolute frame was required, Einstein added
>> that the aether was 'superfluous' to his theory, something Henri
>> Poincare had already publicized even though he firmly believed such a
>> medium did exist.
>> Einstein then made a big mistake. He introduced the idea that any
>> observer could be considered at rest in a kind of personal aether
> 
> No, Henry. You just got through saying (correctly) that Einstein stated
> that the aether was superfluous. But then you get it all wrong and make
> up something called "personal aether" and then blame Einstein for this
> "personal aether", which you, not Einstein, made up.

You obviously know nothing about SR.

>> Einstein's version of aether theory
> 
> Again Henry, after noting that Einstein said the aether was superfluous,
> you get it completely wrong and blame the aether on Einstein. You can't
> have it both ways, Henry.
> 
>> also lacked a mechanism that would
>> bring about light speed unification from all sources.
> 
> Because there was no need for any "unification", Henry.

Then how did Einstein's postulate unify all light speeds? Did he hire 
Paul Andersen's famous fairies to do the jobl?

>> It simply stated
>> it as a postulate.
> 
> It was a postulate, Henry, one based on all observation.  Even back
> then they could measure the speed of light accurately enough that they
> knew the speed of light was constant, Henry.

Well I agree with you that Einstein would not have been bright enough to 
know the difference between OWLS and TWLS.

>> What this means is that whenever light passes through any kind of

>> as is the fact that most of space is
>> sufficiently empty to allow light to behave almost 100% ballistically,
>> as evidenced by variable star light curve analysis.
> 
> Now Henry, you know perfectly well that star light curves confirm that
> light moves at c, since we don't see the bizarre light curves and double
> images we'd expect from binary stars if DirtyBaThWater was correct, Henry.
> As you know, Henry, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
> from binary stars, Henry, something we don't see.

Double images are not expected. They never occur because of light speed 
unification. PLenty of bizarre curves are observed and they usually 
signify the presence of a complex planetary system.


--

Thread

Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 10:25 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:56 +0000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:35 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-09 03:18 +0000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:55 +1000
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:49 +0000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-30 21:30 +0200
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 18:46 +0200
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 12:13 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:36 +0000
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:49 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:40 +0000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 09:19 -0500
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:00 -0700
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-03 01:38 +0200
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-04 12:51 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-01 11:47 -0400
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:42 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-01 15:58 -0700
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 13:19 +0000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-01 12:46 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 14:15 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 10:27 -0700
  Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-07 10:47 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-08 08:52 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:14 -0700
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:18 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-07 12:29 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 10:12 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:36 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 16:09 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 23:34 -0500
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-09 20:57 +1000
      Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:39 -0500
        Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-10 08:22 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:50 +0000
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-11 08:27 +1000
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:14 -0500
                Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-12 07:37 +1000
          Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 21:56 -0500
            Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-16 20:05 +1000
              Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:48 -0500
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 10:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:07 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:15 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 13:30 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:32 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:38 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 15:40 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 10:53 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 14:51 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 15:43 -0700
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory alsor@interia.pl - 2017-08-20 14:12 -0700
    Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-21 08:46 +1000
  Re: Why SR and LET are the Same Theory numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-20 14:28 -0700

csiph-web