Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #427851

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	2017-08-09 20:55 +1000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<omepnn$1m92$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<olj91f$n58$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oljecn$c03$4@pcls7.std.com> <olk98c$he$1@gioia.aioe.org> <omduuc$gu8$2@pcls7.std.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 09/08/17 13:18, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
>> 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, Ralph, 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.
> 
> No,Henry, the fact that TWLS has been measured millions of times and been
> found to always has the value of c, plus the fact that it has been proven
> that the speed of light is isotropic, disproves DirtyBaThWater. Actually
> TWLS being constant is enough to disprove ballistic light, Henry.

Readers note, the above statement from Moron-y proves he is an incurable 
and desperate idiot.


>>> 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?
> 
> Henry George Wilson, that was a really stupid thing to say, even for
> you.  I just got through telling you there was simply no need to "unify"
> light speed since the speed of light is always c, Henry! And you ask again
> how does Einstein do something that never needed to be done?!?!?!?!?

Poor old country shithouse cleaner! Light speed was never always c and 
never will be.
No speed has a particular value, all objects including photons move at 
an infinite range of speeds relative to an infinite number of different 
objects.

>>>> 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 Ralph, 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, Ralph.
>>> As you know, Ralph, DirtyBaThWater predicts these bizarre multiple images
>>> from binary stars, Ralph, something we don't see.
> 
>> Double images are not expected.
> 
> Of course they are expected, Ralph! If the speed of light was variable,
> then faster light emitted later would catch up and pass slower light and
> that that would cause all kinds of bizarre images, Henry!
> 
>> They never occur because of light speed
>> unification.
> 
> Oh cute, Henry!  You are saying that the speed of light is not constant
> except for when it is, and it always is.  Why not embrace this statement
> of yours as proof that DirtyBathWater and variable light speed are failed
> concepts.

I see no point in wasting any more time with this a fool...

> 


--

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