Experiments Refute Einstein's 1905 Second Postulate

[Pentcho Valev]

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:

"In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:

Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.

So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
red shift blue shift

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:49:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

This has been explained to you dozens of times before. Next question?

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

Pentcho: "But I don't believe you. Let me repeat what I said."

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

[Pentcho Valev]

Doppler effect (moving observer) - the simplest experimental refutation of the constancy of the speed of light:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif

The following formula is correct:

f' = c'/d

where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,

c' = c + v.

That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:14:08 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Doppler effect (moving observer) - the simplest experimental refutation of the constancy of the speed of light:

Meanwhile, in the real world:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

In the real world of web pages driven by a bunch
of brainwashed fanatics.

[Prudence Oppenheimer]

So true indeed. There are no apparatus able to measure speeds higher than
the speed of light in vacuum. Thus, the constancy of it, is purely
hypothetical.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Even Great Guru, however, was unable to hold such
an idiocy for long and his GR shit rejects it.

[Lofty Goat]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 09:59:36 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Pentcho: "But I don't believe you. Let me repeat what I said."

"This rock is too big to move. I'll try again tomorrow."

--
Goat

[Pentcho Valev]

Experiments have unequivocally proven that both subluminal motion of light in a vacuum and superluminal motion (not necessarily in a vacuum) are possible. Such inconstancy of the speed of light does not contradict directly Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source but still it is obvious to everybody that subluminality and superluminality are fatal for Einstein's relativity. However the scientific community cannot react properly because Einsteinians bombard it with contradictory and confusing explanations, often involving "group velocity" and "phase velocity". The experimentalists themselves have to include such explanations in their articles - otherwise there would be no publication. Yet even "group velocity" and "phase velocity" turn out to be insufficiently confusing and Einsteinians resort to the ultimate weapon - the speed of some mysterious entity called "information" - as if Einstein had based his 1905 second postulate on the speed of information, not on the speed of light. This speed always gloriously conforms to Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5956/1074.full
Robert W. Boyd, Daniel J. Gauthier, Controlling the Velocity of Light Pulses: "So why do laboratory results of fast light not necessitate the superluminal transfer of information? It is believed that the explanation lies in the distinction between Vg [group velocity] and the information velocity. The group velocity can take on any value. However, the information velocity can never exceed c and, according to many models, is always equal to c."

If it were not for the schizophrenic and confusing atmosphere created by Einsteinians, the inconstancy of the speed of light would be an obvious experimental fact:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857
"Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science 20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796
"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500. [...] While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/epfd-ltt081905.php
"Light that travels... faster than light! [...] This is exactly what the EPFL team has demonstrated. Using their Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) method, the group was able to slow a light signal down by a factor of 3.6, creating a sort of temporary "optical memory." They were also able to create extreme conditions in which the light signal travelled faster than 300 million meters a second. And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over - relativity isn't called into question, because only a portion of the signal is affected."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Light-Pulses-That-Travel-Faster-than-Light-Created-267499.shtml
"Light Pulses That Travel Faster Than Light Created [...] The technique developed at NIST is called four-wave mixing, and it works by altering some parts of each individual light pulse. This makes the light move forward faster than it normally would when traveling through a vacuum. [...] The physicists explain that the new research does not violate Albert Einstein's theory on general relativity - which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest achievable in the Universe. They say that a sort of loophole exists in this theory. By careful tuning of the light source and advanced calculations, it is possible to nudge portions of the light pulses so that they arrive at their destination ahead or behind the main pulse. [...] With four-wave mixing, the NIST investigators produced laser pulses that arrived at their destination a full 50 nanoseconds faster than photons traveling through a vacuum."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23050-light-hits-near-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html
"Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass. A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing. [...] In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second. The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" the speed at which information is travelling is near zero."

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 9:25:24 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Experiments have unequivocally proven that both subluminal motion of light in a vacuum and superluminal motion (not necessarily in a vacuum) are possible.

I have a feeling I'm getting on your nerves.

--
Jan

[Pentcho Valev]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:36:23 AM UTC+3, JanPB wrote:
>
> I have a feeling I'm getting on your nerves.

Is that feeling constantly present or just in moments of over-excitement?

Pentcho Valev

[JanPB]

It was fleeting mood over a glass of Cognac.

--
Jan

[rotchm]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 12:25:24 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Experiments have unequivocally proven that both subluminal motion of light <SNIP>

SPAM reported.

[Ed Lake]

You've misread everything, Pentcho. Here is Einstein's Second Postulate from his 1905 paper on Special Relativity: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."

He was saying that nothing can go faster than c, so if an object is moving, it will still emit light at c regardless of the object's motion. The speed of the object CANNOT be added to the speed of light the object emits.

He said NOTHING about what an outside observer might see. Yet, mathematicians and Quantum Theorists have twisted Einstein's 2nd Postulate to be something like this: "Einstein’s second postulate defines the speed of light to be a constant which is the same for ALL OBSERVERS; thus the speed of light does not depend on the frame of reference from which it is perceived.”

Or like this: “Speed of light is same for ALL OBSERVERS observers regardless of their state of motion with respect to source.”

Those are idiotic quotes from published "scientific papers", but COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS SAY THE SAME THING.

I have a paper that explains all this, showing sources and examples. Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

You also misunderstand what Stephen Hawking wrote. Hawking said that light that is emitted by an object moving toward us will have the same WAVELENGTH as light from a stationary object, but the FREQUENCY of the particles (or waves) will be faster. Light is emitted as PARTICLES, so we would receive more particles per second from an object moving toward us. But the particles will still be traveling at c. As Einstein said, a moving EMITTER will still emit light at c, NOT at c plus the speed of the emitter.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Yes he did. read the feast of the paper, rather than just the introductory
paragraphs. He did not summarize the entirety of the conclusions in that
introductory section. That was only the preamble, and reading the REMAINDER
of the paper is necessary to completely follow all of the conclusions that
ensue.

Selective reading is the bane of amateurs to this field.

> Yet, mathematicians and Quantum Theorists have twisted Einstein's 2nd
> Postulate to be something like this: "Einstein’s second postulate defines
> the speed of light to be a constant which is the same for ALL OBSERVERS;
> thus the speed of light does not depend on the frame of reference from
> which it is perceived.”
>
> Or like this: “Speed of light is same for ALL OBSERVERS observers
> regardless of their state of motion with respect to source.”
>
> Those are idiotic quotes from published "scientific papers", but COLLEGE
> TEXTBOOKS SAY THE SAME THING.
>
> I have a paper that explains all this, showing sources and examples.
> Here's the link: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf
>
> You also misunderstand what Stephen Hawking wrote. Hawking said that
> light that is emitted by an object moving toward us will have the same
> WAVELENGTH as light from a stationary object, but the FREQUENCY of the
> particles (or waves) will be faster. Light is emitted as PARTICLES, so
> we would receive more particles per second from an object moving toward
> us. But the particles will still be traveling at c. As Einstein said, a
> moving EMITTER will still emit light at c, NOT at c plus the speed of the emitter.
>
> Ed
>

[Ed Lake]

In Einstein's 1916 book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" he explains things a bit differently. In Chapter 9 ("The Relativity of Simulatneity") he has a man walking forward in a train traveling at the speed of light (c). Is the man walking at c + W, where W is his speed? No. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The man is walking at W where W = c - W. He cannot go faster than the speed of light, so his TIME is different. Time is slower for him. The speed of light PER SECOND involves a LONGER SECOND for him.

The idea that this or what he wrote in his 1905 paper somehow suggests that ALL OBSERVERS will see the same speed of light - including some outside observer moving toward a source of light - is just plain IDIOTIC. It has been proven wrong in many ways. My paper explains all this.

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
> The idea that this or what he wrote in his 1905 paper somehow suggests that ALL OBSERVERS
> will see the same speed of light - including some outside observer moving toward a source
> of light - is just plain IDIOTIC. It has been proven wrong in many ways.

Quite the contrary. It is perfectly coherent (this is an actual Math
theorem, you know? LTs are consistent), as it is equivalent of something
called "hyperbolic geometry", you've probably never heard about, Mr
Lake.

Moreover this is a result 100% in accord with experiments. Live with
it, Mr Lake.

> My paper explains all this.

Your paper explains nothing but your basic misconceptions and ignorance.

[Ed Lake]

Your OPINIONS have no value to me. Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time. I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin titled "Time Reborn," which includes these passages:

--------------- start quotes ----

Should we simply recognize mathematics for the religious activity it is? Or should we be concerned when the most rational of our thinkers, the mathematicians, speak of what they do as if it were the route to transcendence from the bounds of human life?

-----------------

Mathematics, then, entered science as an expression of a belief in the timeless perfection of the heavens. Useful as mathematics has turned out to be, the postulation of timeless mathematical laws is never completely innocent, for it always carries a trace of the metaphysical fantasy of transcendence from our earthly world to one of perfect forms.

------------- end quotes -------

Mathematics can be used to argue any idiotic theory you want. The Scientific Method and EXPERIMENT is what is used to do REAL science. And the experiments I describe in my paper show that an outside observer CAN see light traveling at c + v, where v is the outside observer's velocity toward the source of the light. The experiments which CLAIM to show otherwise HAVE NO OUTSIDE OBSERVERS. Read my paper: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:09:20 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:53:54 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> >
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > The idea that this or what he wrote in his 1905 paper somehow suggests
> > > that ALL OBSERVERS will see the same speed of light - including some
> > > outside observer moving toward a source of light - is just plain
> > > IDIOTIC. It has been proven wrong in many ways.

What's idiotic is that YOUR take on relativity is nothing more than standard
ballistic theory of light, and THAT theory has no time dilation and is in
accord with the Galilean transform equations. Ballistic theory has been
refuted by multitudes of experiments, as well as the experience of NASA
with its spacecraft and the lunar laser reflector measurements. A few
refutations of ballistic theory:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B

http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html

https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf

> > Quite the contrary. It is perfectly coherent (this is an actual Math
> > theorem, you know? LTs are consistent), as it is equivalent of something
> > called "hyperbolic geometry", you've probably never heard about, Mr
> > Lake.
> >
> > Moreover this is a result 100% in accord with experiments. Live with
> > it, Mr Lake.
> >
> > > My paper explains all this.
> >
> > Your paper explains nothing but your basic misconceptions and ignorance.
>
> Your OPINIONS have no value to me.

IOW, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.

> Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time.

That describes YOUR opinion perfectly.

> I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin

Poor Lee. He is on the horns of a terrible dilemma.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

Every time that a GPS operative satellite broadcasts information in all directions to the ECI stationary space, the signal speed is c, totally independent of the satellite vector velocity v that is continuosly changing direction.

We know that not because something is measuring it, but by the very more powerful reason that c is a constant that is present in the system of simultaneous equations that all GPS receptors are resolving very successfully in a continuous way since 1977, using Euclidean geometry and Cartesian coordinates with the presence of 1686 Newtonian gravity (NOT using at all the today SR and GR space-time concept).

The GPS represents a huge continuous experiment ALWAYS supporting 1905 Einstein Relativity (what I denote 1905R, considering only his Jun30 and Sep27m papers), including his two original postulates; and also supporting the original 1686 Newton's Axioms, or Laws of Motion.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:09:20 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:53:54 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > >
> > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The idea that this or what he wrote in his 1905 paper somehow suggests
> > > > that ALL OBSERVERS will see the same speed of light - including some
> > > > outside observer moving toward a source of light - is just plain
> > > > IDIOTIC. It has been proven wrong in many ways.
>
> What's idiotic is that YOUR take on relativity is nothing more than standard
> ballistic theory of light, and THAT theory has no time dilation and is in
> accord with the Galilean transform equations. Ballistic theory has been
> refuted by multitudes of experiments, as well as the experience of NASA
> with its spacecraft and the lunar laser reflector measurements. A few
> refutations of ballistic theory:
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B
>
> http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf

You are not paying attention.

The "ballistic theory of light" or the "emission theory of light" says that light emitted from a moving object will travel at c + v, where v is the speed of the emitting object.

Einstein said something VERY DIFFERENT. He said that the speed of light emitted from a moving body will always be be c, NOT c + v, where v is the speed of the moving body. It MUST be c, because nothing can go faster than c - the speed of light.

>
> > > Quite the contrary. It is perfectly coherent (this is an actual Math
> > > theorem, you know? LTs are consistent), as it is equivalent of something
> > > called "hyperbolic geometry", you've probably never heard about, Mr
> > > Lake.
> > >
> > > Moreover this is a result 100% in accord with experiments. Live with
> > > it, Mr Lake.
> > >
> > > > My paper explains all this.
> > >
> > > Your paper explains nothing but your basic misconceptions and ignorance.
> >
> > Your OPINIONS have no value to me.
>
> IOW, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.

Opinions have no value to me because they are BELIEFS, not arguments based upon facts and evidence.

>
> > Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time.
>
> That describes YOUR opinion perfectly.

Yes, in my opinion, opinion versus opinion arguments are a waste of time. They go nowhere. They are belief against belief. 99% of the time the guy with the strongest opinion just starts hurling personal attacks when the other person disagrees.

If you want an INTELLIGENT discussion, you need to discuss facts and evidence versus someone else's facts and evidence. You did that above by FALSELY claiming that Einstein's theory was the same as "ballistic theory." I can then show that you are WRONG. In opinion versus opinion arguments, there is no way to show that the other person is wrong. You do not discuss evidence, you state beliefs.

>
> > I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin
>
> Poor Lee. He is on the horns of a terrible dilemma.

Yeah, I agree with Dr. Smolin about the STUPIDITY of believing that mathematical arguments represent reality, but I totally DISAGREE with him about "cosmological natural selection," where universes spawn other universes and gradually things change to where universes are more easily reproduced. I'd never never heard or read about that theory before.

Ed

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:09:20 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:53:54 AM UTC-5, Python wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that this or what he wrote in his 1905 paper somehow suggests
> > > > > that ALL OBSERVERS will see the same speed of light - including some
> > > > > outside observer moving toward a source of light - is just plain
> > > > > IDIOTIC. It has been proven wrong in many ways.
> >
> > What's idiotic is that YOUR take on relativity is nothing more than standard
> > ballistic theory of light, and THAT theory has no time dilation and is in
> > accord with the Galilean transform equations. Ballistic theory has been
> > refuted by multitudes of experiments, as well as the experience of NASA
> > with its spacecraft and the lunar laser reflector measurements. A few
> > refutations of ballistic theory:
> >
> > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B
> >
> > http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
> >
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>
> You are not paying attention.
>
> The "ballistic theory of light" or the "emission theory of light" says that
> light emitted from a moving object will travel at c + v, where v is the
> speed of the emitting object.

YOU are not even conscious. Just who do you think is "observing" that c + v
velocity? Certainly not the observer that remains right beside the emitter
(he sees light moving at c).

> Einstein said something VERY DIFFERENT.

He CERTAINLY did!

> He said that the speed of light emitted from a moving body will always be
> be c, NOT c + v, where v is the speed of the moving body.

Yes, he did. You seem to be opaque to what that means.

> It MUST be c, because nothing can go faster than c - the speed of light.

So why do you babble about a "moving" observer measuring the light as
moving at c + v? NO! It CAN'T do that because NOTHING CAN GO FASTER THAN c.
You said it yourself.

> > > Your OPINIONS have no value to me.
> >
> > IOW, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
>
> Opinions have no value to me because they are BELIEFS, not arguments based
> upon facts and evidence.

Which is exactly why your assertions are unfounded opinions.

Those links I gave confirm the invariance of c. Apparently, you didn't
even LOOK at them because they REFUTE ballistic theory. That just proves
that your mind is impervious to experimental evidence.

> > > Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time.
> >
> > That describes YOUR opinion perfectly.
>
> Yes, in my opinion, opinion versus opinion arguments are a waste of time.
> They go nowhere. They are belief against belief. 99% of the time the guy
> with the strongest opinion just starts hurling personal attacks when the

? other person disagrees.

The other 1% knows the truth and also know that the one pretending that what
he considers facts are really false opinions.

> If you want an INTELLIGENT discussion, you need to discuss facts and
> evidence versus someone else's facts and evidence.

YOU have no facts. All you do is express your opinion about what you
believe Einstein said.

> You did that above by FALSELY claiming that Einstein's theory was the same
> as "ballistic theory."

Well now, you just proved that you can't even read what I wrote, let alone
what Einstein wrote. I said YOUR "theory" was the same as ballistic
theory and is not AT ALL what Einstein's theory is.

> I can then show that you are WRONG.

You can't show that someone else is wrong by being wrong yourself.

> In opinion versus opinion arguments, there is no way to show that the
> other person is wrong. You do not discuss evidence, you state beliefs.

I gave links to REAL evidence and here you are lying about it.

> > > I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin
> >
> > Poor Lee. He is on the horns of a terrible dilemma.
>
> Yeah, I agree with Dr. Smolin about the STUPIDITY of believing that
> mathematical arguments represent reality, but I totally DISAGREE with him
> about "cosmological natural selection," where universes spawn other
> universes and gradually things change to where universes are more easily
> reproduced. I'd never never heard or read about that theory before.
>
> Ed

It's called multiverse theory, and there are several versions of it.

[Pentcho Valev]

Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. [...] By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. [...] We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. [...] Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2). On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well." https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/39953570/lecture-35-paul-fendley

Substituting f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength) into Fendley's equations gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/λ = c(1+gh/c^2)/λ = c'/λ

where

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

is the speed of light relative to an observer on the ground or, equivalently, relative to an observer in gravitation-free space moving with speed v towards the emitter. Clearly the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity. Many scientists know and sometimes even teach that, more or less explicitly:

"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Pound, Rebka and Snider knew that their experiments had confirmed the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, not the gravitational time dilation predicted by Einstein's relativity:

R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev

[Ed Lake]

You're not making sense. Yes, the observer next to the source of the light will observe (and measure) the light traveling at c. Everyone standing right next to the source of light will measure the light as traveling at c regardless of how fast they and the light source are moving. READ MY PAPER.

But what about Joe Scientist in an observatory on Earth who measures the speed of light coming from a reflector on the moon. Joe Scientist is MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis. Joe Scientist will measure the light coming from the reflector on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v, where v is the speed of the earth spinning on it axis. That has been measured that way. READ MY PAPER.

>
> > Einstein said something VERY DIFFERENT.
>
> He CERTAINLY did!
>
> > He said that the speed of light emitted from a moving body will always be
> > be c, NOT c + v, where v is the speed of the moving body.
>
> Yes, he did. You seem to be opaque to what that means.

I explain myself. You do not. You just state meaningless opinions.

>
> > It MUST be c, because nothing can go faster than c - the speed of light.
>
> So why do you babble about a "moving" observer measuring the light as
> moving at c + v? NO! It CAN'T do that because NOTHING CAN GO FASTER THAN c.
> You said it yourself.

The movement of an independent observe DOES NOT AFFECT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. The speed of light is still c even if the independent observer measures it coming to him at c + v, where v is the observer's velocity. The observer's velocity does not change the actual speed of light. IT IS JUST MATHEMATICS. If I weigh 180 pounds on a scale, and you get on the scale with me, and together we weigh 350 pounds, that doesn't change MY weight OR your weight. My speed toward a source of light does not change the speed of light. c + v is just adding two numbers together.

>
> > > > Your OPINIONS have no value to me.
> > >
> > > IOW, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
> >
> > Opinions have no value to me because they are BELIEFS, not arguments based
> > upon facts and evidence.
>
> Which is exactly why your assertions are unfounded opinions.

I cite the experiments and the results in my paper. Therefore what I'm saying is neither "unfounded," nor an "opinion." It is a summary of experimental evidence. Here's the paper once again: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

>
> Those links I gave confirm the invariance of c. Apparently, you didn't
> even LOOK at them because they REFUTE ballistic theory. That just proves
> that your mind is impervious to experimental evidence.

I looked at the links. The first is to a paper you have to BUY to read. If you have a copy, email it to me. The second is to a link about muons, which has to do with Time Dilation, it's not about anything we're discussing here. And the third is to the 1964 Babcock-Bergman paper, which you just point to it without explaining what you think it says that is relevant here.

>
> > > > Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time.
> > >
> > > That describes YOUR opinion perfectly.
> >
> > Yes, in my opinion, opinion versus opinion arguments are a waste of time.
> > They go nowhere. They are belief against belief. 99% of the time the guy
> > with the strongest opinion just starts hurling personal attacks when the
> ? other person disagrees.
>
> The other 1% knows the truth and also know that the one pretending that what
> he considers facts are really false opinions.

And does he really know that, or is it just HIS OPINION?

>
> > If you want an INTELLIGENT discussion, you need to discuss facts and
> > evidence versus someone else's facts and evidence.
>
> YOU have no facts. All you do is express your opinion about what you
> believe Einstein said.

READ MY PAPER. I list the experiments and what they proved. But your OPINION is that the facts and evidence are just someone else's OPINIONS. Obviously facts and evidence mean nothing to you.

>
> > You did that above by FALSELY claiming that Einstein's theory was the same
> > as "ballistic theory."
>
> Well now, you just proved that you can't even read what I wrote, let alone
> what Einstein wrote. I said YOUR "theory" was the same as ballistic
> theory and is not AT ALL what Einstein's theory is.

I have no theory. I merely QUOTED Einstein. And my paper shows the FACTS AND EVIDENCE which confirm the quote from Einstein.

>
> > I can then show that you are WRONG.
>
> You can't show that someone else is wrong by being wrong yourself.

Can't you see how you are just babbling meaningless nonsense???? How do you know I'm wrong? Because I disagree with you and that automatically makes me wrong?

>
> > In opinion versus opinion arguments, there is no way to show that the
> > other person is wrong. You do not discuss evidence, you state beliefs.
>
> I gave links to REAL evidence and here you are lying about it.

Lying about WHAT? You're just babbling.

>
> > > > I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin
> > >
> > > Poor Lee. He is on the horns of a terrible dilemma.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree with Dr. Smolin about the STUPIDITY of believing that
> > mathematical arguments represent reality, but I totally DISAGREE with him
> > about "cosmological natural selection," where universes spawn other
> > universes and gradually things change to where universes are more easily
> > reproduced. I'd never never heard or read about that theory before.
> >
> > Ed
>
> It's called multiverse theory, and there are several versions of it.

The multiverse theories don't claim that universes EVOLVE based upon how many black holes they have. Multiverse theories just claim there are other universes besides our own where the "laws of physics" could be different or where every decision made in our universe creates another universe where the opposite decision was made or just other universes where what goes into a black hole here comes out there.

You just babble and voice opinions. Can't you support anything you say with evidence and an explanation of how the evidence supports you?

Ed

[shuba]

a crank wrote:

> READ MY PAPER.

Why? It's posted on viXra and stands no chance of gaining support from any knowledgeable physicist.


---Tim Shuba---

[Dono,]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> Joe Scientist is MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis. Joe Scientist will measure the light coming from the reflector on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v, where v is the speed of the earth spinning on it axis.

"c+v" is the CLOSING speed by which "Joe" and the light beam cover the distance between them, it is not the speed of light.

> That has been measured that way. READ MY PAPER.

"vixra" is the right repository for the garbage you try to pass as science.

[Ed Lake]

Shuba and Dono have typical responses. They argue against the source instead of attempting to discuss the facts and evidence in the paper.

I tried putting the paper on ArXiv.org, and I even had the endorsement of a top scientist from the Max Planck Institute, but Arxiv.org wouldn't accept it because it goes against current thinking by the people who run Arxiv.org.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:41:55 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > Joe Scientist is MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis. Joe Scientist will measure the light coming from the reflector on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v, where v is the speed of the earth spinning on it axis.
> >
> > "c+v" is the CLOSING speed by which "Joe" and the light beam cover the distance between them, it is not the speed of light.
> >
> >
> > > That has been measured that way. READ MY PAPER.
> >
> > "vixra" is the right repository for the garbage you try to pass as science.
>
> Shuba and Dono have typical responses.

We gave you the mainstream response. The fact that you are an idiot is not something that we can fix.

>
> I tried putting the paper on ArXiv.org, and I even had the endorsement of a top scientist from the Max Planck Institute, but Arxiv.org wouldn't accept it because it goes against current thinking by the people who run Arxiv.org.
>
> Ed

arxiv doesn't accept trash, this is why vixra was created

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:07:23 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:57:23 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:41:55 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 7:46:32 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > > Joe Scientist is MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis. Joe Scientist will measure the light coming from the reflector on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v, where v is the speed of the earth spinning on it axis.
> > >
> > > "c+v" is the CLOSING speed by which "Joe" and the light beam cover the distance between them, it is not the speed of light.
> > >
> > >
> > > > That has been measured that way. READ MY PAPER.
> > >
> > > "vixra" is the right repository for the garbage you try to pass as science.
> >
> > Shuba and Dono have typical responses.
>
> We gave you the mainstream response. The fact that you are an idiot is not something that we can fix.

Ah. A personal attack. Just what I was expect from people who have nothing intelligent to say.

>
>
>
> >
> > I tried putting the paper on ArXiv.org, and I even had the endorsement of a top scientist from the Max Planck Institute, but Arxiv.org wouldn't accept it because it goes against current thinking by the people who run Arxiv.org.
> >
> > Ed
>
>
> arxiv doesn't accept trash, this is why vixra was created

Who decides what is "trash" and what is "a new idea"? You? Arxiv?

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

On 8/18/17 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:45:19 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:

>>> You are not paying attention.
>>>
>>> The "ballistic theory of light" or the "emission theory of light" says that
>>> light emitted from a moving object will travel at c + v, where v is the
>>> speed of the emitting object.
>>
>> YOU are not even conscious. Just who do you think is "observing" that c + v
>> velocity? Certainly not the observer that remains right beside the emitter
>> (he sees light moving at c).
>
> You're not making sense. Yes, the observer next to the source of the light will observe (and measure) the light traveling at c. Everyone standing right next to the source of light will measure the light as traveling at c regardless of how fast they and the light source are moving. READ MY PAPER.

But Ed, for this observer next to the source of light, the source is not
traveling at v. It is traveling at speed 0.

The ballistic theory of light says that for an observer for whom the
source is moving at speed v, then the speed of light for THAT observer
will be c+v, which is precisely what you are claiming.

Idiot.
Illiterate idiot.
Self-immolating, illiterate idiot.

[anne]

if you haven't already found it elsewhere, try here:
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.1051

[Dono,]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 9:50:15 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > arxiv doesn't accept trash, this is why vixra was created
>
> Who decides what is "trash" and what is "a new idea"? You? Arxiv?
>
> Ed

People who know their stuff. This excludes crank "authors" like you or Stephane Baune.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 18 sierpnia 2017 20:59:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/18/17 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:45:19 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
> >>> You are not paying attention.
> >>>
> >>> The "ballistic theory of light" or the "emission theory of light" says that
> >>> light emitted from a moving object will travel at c + v, where v is the
> >>> speed of the emitting object.
> >>
> >> YOU are not even conscious. Just who do you think is "observing" that c + v
> >> velocity? Certainly not the observer that remains right beside the emitter
> >> (he sees light moving at c).
> >
> > You're not making sense. Yes, the observer next to the source of the light will observe (and measure) the light traveling at c. Everyone standing right next to the source of light will measure the light as traveling at c regardless of how fast they and the light source are moving. READ MY PAPER.
>
> But Ed, for this observer next to the source of light, the source is not
> traveling at v. It is traveling at speed 0.

Sure. Your car can't move when you're sitting in.
Gurus said! Gurus can't be wrong like common mortals.

[JanPB]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 1:51:52 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Paul Fendley: "First consider light shined downward in a freely falling elevator of height h. [...] By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it [the elevator] is accelerated to some velocity v. [...] We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. [...] Now to the earth frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground the frequency f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2). On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity bend light, but changes its frequency as well." https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/39953570/lecture-35-paul-fendley
>
> Substituting f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength) into Fendley's equations gives:
>
> f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/λ = c(1+gh/c^2)/λ = c'/λ

This has been explained to you dozens of times before. Next question?

(See, I can cut and paste same thing over and over just like you. Surprised?)

--
Jan

[Gary Harnagel]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 8:45:19 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 2:49:00 PM UTC-6, Ed Lake wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What's idiotic is that YOUR take on relativity is nothing more than
> > > > standard ballistic theory of light, and THAT theory has no time
> > > > dilation and is in accord with the Galilean transform equations.
> > > > Ballistic theory has been refuted by multitudes of experiments, as
> > > > well as the experience of NASA with its spacecraft and the lunar
> > > > laser reflector measurements. A few refutations of ballistic theory:
> > > >
> > > > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B
> > > >
> > > > http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
> > > >
> > > > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > >
> > > You are not paying attention.
> > >
> > > The "ballistic theory of light" or the "emission theory of light" says
> > > that light emitted from a moving object will travel at c + v, where v
> > > is the speed of the emitting object.
> >
> > YOU are not even conscious. Just who do you think is "observing" that
> > c + v velocity? Certainly not the observer that remains right beside
> > the emitter (he sees light moving at c).
>
> You're not making sense. Yes, the observer next to the source of the light
> will observe (and measure) the light traveling at c. Everyone standing
> right next to the source of light will measure the light as traveling at c
> regardless of how fast they and the light source are moving. READ MY PAPER.

This is true for SR and for ballistic theory.

> But what about Joe Scientist in an observatory on Earth who measures the
> speed of light coming from a reflector on the moon. Joe Scientist is
> MOVING as the Earth spins on its axis. Joe Scientist will measure the
> light coming from the reflector on the moon as arriving at c PLUS v,
> where v is the speed of the earth spinning on it axis. That has been
> measured that way.

No, it hasn't. It is assumed to be c, and they use that value and the
roundtrip time or the light to compute the distance from the earth to the
moon. If they used YOUR outrageous baloney, they would compute the orbit
of the moon like so:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DPK0NJYoyXZ200UTRJMEpPbnc/view

THIS is what happens when fools think they know when they know NOTHING.

> READ MY PAPER.

Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not
original, and the part that is original is not good. -- Samuel Johnson

> > > Einstein said something VERY DIFFERENT.
> >
> > He CERTAINLY did!
> >
> > > He said that the speed of light emitted from a moving body will always be
> > > be c, NOT c + v, where v is the speed of the moving body.
> >
> > Yes, he did. You seem to be opaque to what that means.
>
> I explain myself. You do not. You just state meaningless opinions.

That would be YOUR opinions that are worse than meaningless, i.e., dead wrong.

> > > It MUST be c, because nothing can go faster than c - the speed of light.
> >
> > So why do you babble about a "moving" observer measuring the light as
> > moving at c + v? NO! It CAN'T do that because NOTHING CAN GO FASTER THAN
> > c. You said it yourself.
>
> The movement of an independent observe DOES NOT AFFECT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Exactly! SO why are you babbling that it does?

> The speed of light is still c even if the independent observer measures it
> coming to him at c + v, where v is the observer's velocity.

Complete and utter abjectly wrong baloney.

> The observer's velocity does not change the actual speed of light.

So just how do you know whether or not an observer has "velocity"? You
CAN'T.

> IT IS JUST MATHEMATICS. If I weigh 180 pounds on a scale, and you get on
> the scale with me, and together we weigh 350 pounds, that doesn't change
> MY weight OR your weight. My speed toward a source of light does not
> change the speed of light. c + v is just adding two numbers together.

It's also dead wrong. You baloney is nothing more than ballistic theory, but
you're too stupid to realize it.

> > > > > Your OPINIONS have no value to me.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
> > >
> > > Opinions have no value to me because they are BELIEFS, not arguments based
> > > upon facts and evidence.
> >
> > Which is exactly why your assertions are unfounded opinions.
>
> I cite the experiments and the results in my paper.

Yeah, wrong results.

> Therefore what I'm saying is neither "unfounded," nor an "opinion."

Sure it's unfounded opinion.

> It is a summary of experimental evidence.

Nope. It's completely stupid and wrong conclusions.

> Here's the paper once again: http://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0256v4.pdf

Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not
original, and the part that is original is not good. -- Samuel Johnson

> > Those links I gave confirm the invariance of c. Apparently, you didn't
> > even LOOK at them because they REFUTE ballistic theory. That just proves
> > that your mind is impervious to experimental evidence.
>
> I looked at the links. The first is to a paper you have to BUY to read.

So read the abstract, dummkopf.

> If you have a copy, email it to me.

I didn't think you'd read it and even if you did, your lack of mathematical
skills would prevent you from understanding what it said. All you need is
the conclusions, which are presented in the abstract. Here's the paper,
compliments of Paul A.:

https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

> The second is to a link about muons, which has to do with Time Dilation,
> it's not about anything we're discussing here.

Of course it is what we're discussing here. Time dilation is a result of
light having the same speed to ALL observers.

> And the third is to the 1964 Babcock-Bergman paper, which you just point
> to it without explaining what you think it says that is relevant here.

As I thought, you are incapable of rational and critical thought. Good
grief! Why are you posting your nonsense when you can't even READ!

> > > > > Opinion versus opinion arguments are just a waste of time.
> > > >
> > > > That describes YOUR opinion perfectly.
> > >
> > > Yes, in my opinion, opinion versus opinion arguments are a waste of time.
> > > They go nowhere. They are belief against belief. 99% of the time the guy
> > > with the strongest opinion just starts hurling personal attacks when the
> > ? other person disagrees.
> >
> > The other 1% knows the truth and also know that the one pretending that what
> > he considers facts are really false opinions.
>
> And does he really know that, or is it just HIS OPINION?

My opinions are backed up by facts. YOURS are misinterpretations of the facts.

> > > If you want an INTELLIGENT discussion, you need to discuss facts and
> > > evidence versus someone else's facts and evidence.
> >
> > YOU have no facts. All you do is express your opinion about what you
> > believe Einstein said.
>
> READ MY PAPER. I list the experiments and what they proved.

Nope. It lists experiments and your misinterpretations of them.

> But your OPINION is that the facts and evidence are just someone else's
> OPINIONS. Obviously facts and evidence mean nothing to you.

Obviously, you are incapable of rational thought.

> > > You did that above by FALSELY claiming that Einstein's theory was the same
> > > as "ballistic theory."
> >
> > Well now, you just proved that you can't even read what I wrote, let alone
> > what Einstein wrote. I said YOUR "theory" was the same as ballistic
> > theory and is not AT ALL what Einstein's theory is.
>
> I have no theory.

Of COURSE you do, liar. Your theory is that a "moving" observer will
measure light traveling at c + v. Your theory is also that light can
never travel faster than c, which is in disastrous conflict with the
first claim.

> I merely QUOTED Einstein.

You misinterpreted Einstein.

> And my paper shows the FACTS AND EVIDENCE which confirm the quote from
> Einstein.

Which you misinterpreted.

> > > I can then show that you are WRONG.
> >
> > You can't show that someone else is wrong by being wrong yourself.
>
> Can't you see how you are just babbling meaningless nonsense????

Pot, kettle, black.

> How do you know I'm wrong?

Because it disagrees with what Einstein said, but more importantly, it
disagrees with the experimental evidence.

> Because I disagree with you and that automatically makes me wrong?

It's not what I think that's important, it's what the experimental
evidence says. What I have said should AT LEAST cause you pause and do
some research. But no-o-o-o-o, you just repeat your baloney, which is
something any read-only memory can do.

> > > In opinion versus opinion arguments, there is no way to show that the
> > > other person is wrong. You do not discuss evidence, you state beliefs.
> >
> > I gave links to REAL evidence and here you are lying about it.
>
> Lying about WHAT? You're just babbling.

See? Evidence to you is just "babbling." That says it all about you.

> > > > > I just finished reading a book by Lee Smolin
> > > >
> > > > Poor Lee. He is on the horns of a terrible dilemma.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I agree with Dr. Smolin about the STUPIDITY of believing that
> > > mathematical arguments represent reality, but I totally DISAGREE with him
> > > about "cosmological natural selection," where universes spawn other
> > > universes and gradually things change to where universes are more easily
> > > reproduced. I'd never never heard or read about that theory before.
> > >
> > > Ed
> >
> > It's called multiverse theory, and there are several versions of it.
>
> The multiverse theories don't claim that universes EVOLVE based upon how
> many black holes they have.

What? Non sequitur!

> Multiverse theories just claim there are other universes besides our own
> where the "laws of physics" could be different or where every decision
> made in our universe creates another universe where the opposite decision
> was made or just other universes where what goes into a black hole here
> comes out there.
>
> You just babble and voice opinions.

YOU are the fool babbling about multiverses and black holes. I just made
an inane comment in response and you do a crap dump.

> Can't you support anything you say with evidence and an explanation of
> how the evidence supports you?
>
> Ed

Those links I gave should be sufficient for an honest, intelligent person
to figure it all out. Obviously, you are neither honest nor intelligent.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:49:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:
>
> "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:
>
> "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:
>
> Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.
>
> So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
> red shift blue shift
>
> http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
>
> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev

There seems to be a problem with the Doppler proof that light shares the velocity of the source:
A Direct Terrestrial Test of the Second Postulate of Special Relativity

T. ALVÄGER, A. NILSSON & J. KJELLMAN

Nature volume 197, page 1191 (1963)Cite this article

Abstract

THE following is a preliminary report of an investigation performed to test directly, in a terrestrial experiment, the second postulate of special relativity, which states that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the light source. A direct test means here that the velocity of the light from a moving source is measured by a time-of-flight technique and not by use of interference effects in a closed light path or a frequency measurement. Investigations of the last-mentioned type may lead to difficulties in the interpretation of the result and are therefore not very satisfactory, as pointed out by, for example, H. Dingle1.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:12:38 AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:49:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, e........

> >
> > http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
> > Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
> >

Suppose in the above example, a distant star, emitting light towards us, reaches us at velocity c.
The start is one light year away.

Suppose we start moving towards the start. In one day we reach velocity v.

Questions:

(a) What is the velocity of light reaching us before we started moving? (answer : c)

(b) What is the velocity of light that was emitted before we started moving to the star and one day after we started moving

(answer: c) (answer: ?)

(c) How will the light that left the star one day after we started moving adjust its speed so that it reaches us at velocity c?

(d) Do I really have to understand SRT to ask the question?

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:12:38?AM UTC+5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Ad d) No. Any fool can ask any question at all
without having to understand anything at all.

You could try to mend the errors of your ways though,
(really, it -is- possible. do b and c for yourself)

Jan

--
"One fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer" (proverb)

[Tom Capizzi]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:49:16 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:
>
> "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:
>
> "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:
>
> Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.
>
> So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
> red shift blue shift
>
> http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
>

> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev

The fundamental problem with this analysis is that Newton's velocity addition approximation is simply not valid for velocities that are not very small fractions of light speed. So your assertion that c' = c+v is just false. Newtonian physics is not valid at lightspeed. The rest of the argument, once it starts with a false assumption, is irrelevant. If the argument actually follows from the assumption, then using the correct velocity composition formula will lead to a different conclusion.

It is a fact that the Lorentz transformation is a hyperbolic rotation. It is also a fact that every Lorentz transformation can be characterized by a boost. It is further a fact that the boost of the product of two arbitrary transformations is just the linear sum of the individual boosts of the two composing transformations. The boost itself is just a euphemism for hyperbolic rotation angle, and the rule illustrates the fact that hyperbolic rotation angles compose by linear addition. This can be proved from the geometric definition of a hyperbolic angle. The angle is defined as an area under a hyperbola. Specifically, given the unit hyperbola, xy = 1, the rotation angle for any point on the hyperbola is the triangular patch bounded by the axis of symmetry, the radius vector to the point and the arc of the hyperbola between the two intersections of the radii with the curve. This is completely analogous to the definition of the circular angle. A circular angle is the area bounded by the same axis of symmetry (of a circle that is tangent to the hyperbola at the vertex), a radius vector to an arbitrary point on the circle and the arc of the curve between the points of intersection. This is because the circle and the hyperbola are stereographic projections of each other. Every point on the perimeter of one figure maps to a point on the perimeter of the other. Every point inside the sector of the circle maps to a unique point inside the triangular wedge, in spite of the fact that the area of the wedge is unbounded while the area of the sector is finite. Anyway, the point is that the area of this triangular wedge is the hyperbolic angle. The usual method for finding the area of an irregular shape is to split it up into smaller, simpler shapes and add the results.

Because the curve is a hyperbola, we can do a little geometric algebra to simplify the computation. We start by dropping two perpendiculars to the x axis from the two points on the curve. This creates two right triangles. We add the area of the triangle formed by the vertex, and subtract the area formed by the arbitrary point. Since the area of a right triangle is just 1/2 base x height, and both points are on a hyperbola for which the product of the coordinates is constant, both triangles have the same area, and they cancel out, leaving the total area unchanged in magnitude. Now, however, the perimeter is a quadrilateral, with 3 perpendicular line segments and the same section of the hyperbola. It is now in a form to find the definite integral of the area under the hyperbola between an arbitrary value of x, and 1. Where the function is continuous and the integral exists, the limits of integration are subject to certain rules, for all definite integrals. If A and C are the limits of integration, and B is between them, the area of the definite integral from A to C must equal the sum of the area from A to B and the area from B to C. Each one of these areas is a hyperbolic rotation angle, so if we represent this area by w, the rule can be expressed as w3 = w1+w2. The composition of hyperbolic angles is by linear addition. This is a law of mathematics.

There is another law of mathematics that relates a hyperbolic angle to a circular angle. It is an isomorphism that uniquely maps one to the other. It is the analytical relationship that describes the stereographic projection mentioned above between the areas of the two triangular shapes. There are a number of identities associated with this isomorphism, but the one we are interested in is sin(θ) = tanh(w). When scaled by the invariant speed of light, relative velocity, v, equals c sin(θ) = c tanh(w). When θ is very small, as in Newtonian physics, sin(θ) ≈ θ, and the sum of two velocities can be approximated as v1+v2 = c sin(θ1)+c sin(θ2) = c θ1 + c θ2 = c (θ1+θ2 ) = c θ3 = c sin(θ3) = v3. However, when θ is not small (as in relativistic velocities), the approximation is not valid. But hyperbolic composition is an identity, independent of velocity. If we want to combine large velocities, we can map the angles, θ, to the equivalent hyperbolic angles, add them, and convert back to velocity. In other words, v3 = c sin(θ3) = c tanh(w3) = c tanh(w1+w2) = c(tanh(w1)+tanh(w2))/(1+tanh(w1)tanh(w2)) = ((c tanh(w1))+(c tanh(w2)))/(1+(c tanh(w1))(c tanh(w2))/c²) = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c²). This is exact and valid for all velocities, whereas the first, simpler form is just an approximation that is only valid at low speeds. The relativistic formula is not a correction to the Newtonian formula. The Newtonian formula is a corruption of the exact formula. It is an accident of history that Newton came first.

So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c. So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.

[Tom Capizzi]

I haven't read your paper, but I don't have to. There is a mathematical reason why lightspeed IS the same for all observers, and it is invariant with respect to relative velocity. It is because measured velocity, in general, is the real, cosine projection of complex Proper velocity. Physics doesn't approve of Proper velocity, primarily for two reasons. For one, they can't measure it, because it is complex. For another, it violates the 2nd Postulate. So, despite the fact that all momentum is invariant mass x Proper velocity, it is considered a mere mathematical convenience. The fact is, they have the definition of the limiting velocity wrong. It is the unique limit of the real projections of complex Proper velocity as the magnitude of Proper velocity approaches infinity. The light speed limit only applies to real velocities, and Proper velocity is complex, so it is exempt.

So, they can't measure it because it is complex, and because it is complex, it is exempt from the 2nd Postulate. Velocity addition is non-intuitive because it is based on hyperbolic trigonometry. The relativistic velocity addition formula is non-linear because hyperbolic velocity addition is perfectly linear. It is based on the isomorphism sin(θ) = tanh(w). In polar coordinates, velocity is c sin(θ) = c tanh(w). If we want to combine two velocities, we can transform them to their hyperbolic equivalent, add the hyperbolic angles linearly, and project the result back to a velocity. This way, we don't need to use the bastardized, relativistic velocity addition formula.

The definition of lightspeed maps it to infinite Proper velocity, so no other velocity can map to infinite Proper velocity. This means that all sublight velocities map to finite Proper velocities. Finite Proper velocity means a finite hyperbolic angle, and the sum of any two finite hyperbolic angles is another finite hyperbolic angle. Which means that the composition of any two sublight velocities can never reach or exceed lightspeed, no matter how close they are to c. If one of the velocities is lightspeed, its hyperbolic angle is infinite. Trying to add a finite hyperbolic angle to an infinite one is futile. The "sum" is just the same infinity, which maps back to the same 1c. Even if both velocities are c, then both hyperbolic angles are infinite. Adding them is equivalent to multiplying infinity by 2, which is also futile. The result is again the same infinity, and it maps back to 1c. In short, the speed of light is invariant with respect to any relative velocity. The non-intuitive properties of lightspeed are just the logical properties of infinity. Relativity is inscrutable because it is essentially being taught in the wrong mathematical language.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Agreed.

>
> You could try to mend the errors of your ways though,
> (really, it -is- possible. do b and c for yourself)
>
> Jan
>

Refusal to answer the questions is a huge red flag and does not prove anything.

We all know that answering the question will cause embarrassment. Do you know how much time can be saved by simply answering the question directly?

Let me resort to ChatGPT

> --
> "One fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer" (proverb)

A truly wise man can answer any fool. An evasive answer is a red flag. (two proverbs)

[J. J. Lodder]

gehan.am...@gmail.com <gehan.am...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, the idea is to get you to do something for yourself,
for once.

> We all know that answering the question will cause embarrassment. Do you
> know how much time can be saved by simply answering the question directly?

But then you wouldn't have learned anything.

> Let me resort to ChatGPT

Anything to avoid having a thought for yourself will do?

Jan

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

OK

Questions:

(a) What is the velocity of light reaching us before we started moving? (answer : c) In the inertial frame of reference of the star and us, all stationary in the one inertial frame of reference.

(b) What is the velocity of light that was emitted before we started moving to the star and one day after we started moving

(answer: c) (answer: ?)

Answer : (a).

Answer: The velocity of light emitted from the star, as measured in the frame in which the star is at rest is c.
One day after we started moving, it does not make any difference to the star or the light emitted from it what we do.

(c) How will the light that left the star one day after we started moving adjust its speed so that it reaches us at velocity c?

The velocity of light will be measured at closing speed c relative to us in the inertial frame of reference of the star.

There is no adjustment.

We will, however, encounter the light from the star sooner since we are moving towards it.
The front of our spaceship will encounter points in empty space star sooner than if we were not moving relative to the start.
So will the rear of our spaceship.

Since light is not bound to any part of space, nothing can be said about the speed of light.

(d) Do I really have to understand SRT to ask the question?

Yes, will save time.

[Jane]

On Mon, 08 May 2023 19:55:29 -0700, Tom Capizzi wrote:

big snip

> So, the point is, c+v is meaningless. At those speeds, it is supposed to
> be (c+v)/(1+c*v/c²). And this is (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c(1+v/c)/(1+v/c) = c.
> So an argument based on c+v is also meaningless.

What a load of crap






--
-- lover of truth

[Python]

This is basically your "uncle"'s words.

You are mixing up sides in your role. Give up :-)

[Dono.]

kookfight

[Tom Capizzi]

An unsupported opinion with no basis in fact. Velocity addition is a low-speed approximation. It fails at high speeds. That's a fact. If you think that's wrong, show proof. Pronouncements are unacceptable.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

What you are saying is dumb. Demanding proof is silly since why would it be worthwhile for me to do that? Only the skeptics and critics of relativity here are worthwhile consulting. Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX, elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No relativity is needed.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:

Relativity is not even wrong, and its defenders have nothing to defend it with.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:00:26 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:

If you reply that relativity only applies to speeds close to the speed of light and the Earth in the MMX was moving (1/10,000th) 30 km/sec, then how does relativity explain the MMX?

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Relativity is compatible with MMX.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

As I said, relativity is not needed to explain the MMX. Who needs relativity? In fact, the MMX disproves the second postulate.

[Tom Capizzi]

Relativity applies at ALL speeds. It just isn't significant until velocity is much greater than escape velocity. Of course, with specialized instruments, that velocity threshold is reduced, as in GPS systems. Clearly, velocity is less than escape velocity, but the precision of measurement requires relativistic corrections there. There are relativistic corrections at 30 km/s, which is faster than a GPS satellite. You don't grasp the fact that ordinary velocity addition is only a first-order approximation. It is a corruption of the full velocity addition formula, which is itself a transformed version of hyperbolic velocity composition, which is absolutely LINEAR in the hyperbolic angle, what physics calls a Lorentz boost. "Laws" that are based on approximations are not legitimate, like the arguments made using them. Simply increasing the velocity causes the so-called "law" to break down. If that's all you've got, no one is buying it.

[Tom Capizzi]

Actually, the 2nd Postulate can be proved mathematically, so your unfounded claim is wrong. The MMX does NOT disprove the 2nd Postulate. Maybe your interpretation seems to, but that is a strawman, and doesn't really apply.

[Tom Capizzi]

In the first place, nobody asked you for proof. That was for the person who called a logical argument "a load of crap". If a logical argument is incorrect, then there is a logical error that can be pointed out. I don't accept rebuttal by pronouncement. That's merely an opinion. I do agree that relativity has problems, but your dismissal of it smacks of ignorance. Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity. What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the results. This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's good enough."

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/11/23 8:40 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Relativity has no basis in fact since it is mathematical fiction
> divorced from physical reality. At the speeds involved in the MMX,
> elementary velocity addition is sufficient. The only reason
> relativity's velocity addition is needed to be so complex is to
> negate additive velocity instead of incorporating it. Apply ordinary
> velocity addition to the MMX, and everything is perfectly clear. No
> relativity is needed.

This is all nonsense, and merely shows that YOU do not understand either
relativity or science in general.

You need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write
about it.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]

The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.

> Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.

Yes. That is how science works.

> What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> results.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

> This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> good enough."

This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
building MODELS of how the world works, and that inherently cannot
answer "why?" questions. This, of course, goes much deeper than mere
"numbers that agree".

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:22:20 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]
>
> The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.
> > Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.
> Yes. That is how science works.
> > What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> > results.
> I have no idea what you mean by this.
> > This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> > only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> > good enough."
> This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
> building MODELS of how the world works,

No, your building MODELS of how your delusions works.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the MMX. It is easily accounted for exactly utilizing ordinary additive velocity. No second-order corrections are necessary. No Lorentz boost is needed. No matter what the speed, this remains true. It would remain valid if the Earth were moving at 99% C. I don't need anyone in the relativity community to buy it. I don't need relativity. Relativity is purely nonsensical pseudoscience. Whatever the mathematics, they are disproved by the MMX since it is entirely explained by ordinary additive velocity. What I am saying is not part of any hidden interpretation. It is just additive velocity as follows. The beam perpendicular to the motion of the Earth's orbit, when sharing the velocity of the source, by Galileo's principle and Newton's corollary to his laws of motion, will have additive velocity. It will also have an added distance to travel because its path will describe a hypotenuse on its way out to the mirror. The added velocity exactly counteracts the added distance making the apparent velocity C. Voila. Now, if light did not share the velocity of the source, it would have negative added velocity and a lengthened path of the hypotenuse, making its apparent speed C- V- D. This would result in a fringe shift that was not observed. Your acceptance of relativity smacks of ignorance. The experiments do not confirm relativity. Relativity is complete nonsense.

[Dono.]

Kookfight

[Tom Capizzi]

Rubbish. You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is physical or not. Einstein said it had to be because both length contraction and time dilation were necessary to support his empirical 2nd Postulate. Now, I get crackpot skeptics telling me that length contraction is just a passive Lorentz transformation or that it is a result on non-simultaneous measurement of the ends of the length interval, in spite of the fact that simultaneity is required by the protocol. You can choose to ignore these problems. I guess I don't know how physics works, but that isn't science. But "numbers that agree" is not good enough for me. Let me put it this way. If I tell you why your model is valid or not, from fundamental mathematics, are you interested or not? Maybe it isn't the job of a physicist to look for an answer to "Why?", but if one is handed to him isn't he obligated to consider it?

So, enough of your opinions. Is length contraction physical or not? If it is, how does it even happen? We know it takes enormous gravitational force to overcome nuclear repulsive forces, something that was not well understood when length contraction was proposed. Relativity requires the same contraction if the observer is stationary and the object is moving as if the object is stationary and only the observer is moving. How does an inert object know that it is being observed? How does it know the relative velocity? And most of all, how does the stationary object, which has no reason to contract in the first place, contract by different amounts for multiple observers moving at different relative velocities trying to measure it at the same time? And you claim there are no problems.

On the other hand, it may not be physical. But time dilation certainly is. GPS would not work without it. So if time dilation is physical and length contraction isn't, how do we rationalize the 2nd Postulate. The invariance of c is something that is apparently physical, because all those experiments to measure it got the same results. But if length contraction is not physical, how is that possible? Show me that you have a more logical explanation than mainstream physics.

[Tom Capizzi]

There is a mathematical reason why lightspeed is invariant. It is the unique limit of the real projections of complex Proper velocity as Proper velocity approaches infinity. Adding velocity to lightspeed is equivalent to adding finite hyperbolic angle to infinite hyperbolic angle. No change in the total, it's still just infinity. There is no such thing as c+v. It is incorrect to simply add velocities unless they are small compared to c. The Earth's velocity around the sun is not small enough to avoid detection of relativistic effects. Therefore, velocity addition is wrong, period. The boost of a Lorentz transformation adds linearly when two boosts are composed. The low speed approximation is just velocity addition. But, since it is an approximation, asserting that it is valid at any speed involves contradicting the linearity of boost addition. Boost addition is a fundamental property of hyperbolic trigonometry. To claim that it is not true is simply unsupported rubbish. It is one thing to make ludicrous statements, it is another to track all the unavoidable consequences. Your claim does not pass any true test. Furthermore, physicists tried to explain the MMX with Newtonian physics and they could not do it. Yet, you claim to know better. Your argument is vague generalizations that I doubt mean anything if you used actual formulas. The MMX was only satisfactorily explained with the inclusion of relativistic effects. You are just fooling yourself.

[carl eto]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:49:16 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> So the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, an antithesis of Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate, is compatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Does this mean that the postulate itself is incompatible and therefore the experiment refutes it? Yes, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. In other words, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the experiment unequivocally confirms the variability of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constancy of the speed of light:
>
> "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has been refuted by much simpler experiments:
>
> "In our animation, Zoe turns on the headlights of her space ship. She measures the speed of light from her headlights as c with respect to her. Jasper sees her travelling towards him at (let's say) v. He measures the speed of light from her headlights as c. No, not c+v, but just c. Surely this is counter-intuitive? Maybe even crazy?"
> http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
>
> Actually Jasper measures the speed of the light from Zoe's headlights as c'=c+v, not c, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Here is why:
>
> Moving Zoe measures the speed of the light from her headlights as c, the frequency as f, and the wavelength as λ=c/f. If Zoe were at rest (relative to Jasper) and did the same measurements, she would obtain exactly the same c, f and λ. This is required by the principle of relativity - if any of the quantities, e.g. the wavelength, had different values at rest and at motion, the principle of relativity would be obviously violated.
>
> So the emitted wavelength is the same at rest and at motion, according to the principle of relativity, and yet Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength gets shorter) in front of a moving light source and spread out (the wavelength gets longer) behind it:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M
> red shift blue shift
>
> http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."
>

> The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity. The increased frequency established in Doppler measurements is due to the increased speed of the light and represents a straightforward experimental refutation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.
>
> Pentcho Valev

Damn your stupid

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

I really appreciate your highly intelligent commentary showing how easy it is do without relativity.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).

[Tom Capizzi]

Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:51:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:

> > None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).
> Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.

You could try to understand because 30,000,000ths of a second is the time light takes to travel 10 meters. Try again.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Sorry you could not understand something so simple. The added length of the hypotenuse is exactly compensated by the additive velocity which is calculated by the square root of a^2 + b^2 or in the MMX C^2 + 30 km/sec^2.

[Tom Capizzi]

No, mr. smartass, it is not. The error you introduce by rounding off the exact value is orders of magnitude larger than the relativistic effects. Lightspeed is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. The time it takes light to travel 10 m is 3.335640952e-8s, not 3.333333333e-8s. That's an error of more than 0.08%, orders of magnitude greater than the relativistic correction.

[Tom Capizzi]

That's funny. You claim the velocity along the path of the orbit is c+v, but the velocity along the hypotenuse is only √(c²+v²), which is less than c+v, and the hypotenuse is longer, yet there is no fringe shift!

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You are very silly because it doesn't matter what the numbers are exactly because they necessarily result in a speed increase exactly sufficient to compensate for the lengthening of the hypotenuse. If you are so smart why don't you show the calculation that do not? The square root of C^2 + 30km/sec^2 is a speed that exactly compensates for the lengthened hypotenuse.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

Obviously, when I said C + V, I was abbreviating the square root of C^2 + V^2.

[Tom Capizzi]

You still ignore the fact that the speed is slower than the c+v you assert in the direction of the Earth's orbit. How is there not a fringe shift? And if it exactly compensates for the longer hypotenuse, then the time is the same as if the path were not angled and the propagation velocity was only c. Still a fringe shift if the straightline velocity is c+v.

[Tom Capizzi]

In any case, that is not the correct calculation for perpendicular velocities when one is relativistic. That is the incorrect Newtonian approximation again. Also, the c+v value still applies to the arm that is parallel to the path of the orbit. It still takes less time in one arm than in the other. That means fringe shift. No fringe shift means your elaborate Rube Goldberg scheme fails.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You obviously missed my comment correcting your idea that I was saying the speed was C + V. Why would I mean that? Obviously, the square root of C^2 + V^2 is smaller, and it exactly compensates for the lengthening of the hypotenuse. Remember, there are two hypotenuses on the way up and down.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It is not smart ass to say that relativity is a useless pseudoscience. It is a fact.

[Dono.]

Kookfight

[Tom Capizzi]

What is a fact is that you have failed to explain the MMX. Your blathering about the √(c²+v²) applies to the normal arm only. According to you, the additional length is exactly compensated for by the extra speed. In other words, it is the same as if there were no angle and the light was just moving at c. Or the flight time was 20/c. However, the parallel arm has c+v in one direction and c-v in the other. Flight time is 10/(c+v) + 10/(c-v) = (10(c-v)+10(c+v)/(c²-v²) = 20/c*(1-v²/c²), not 20/c. That's a discrepancy in flight time, and means fringe shift. Your explanation fails.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It is silly when you cannot consider the other side without intruding your own assumptions. Without your (1-V^2/C^2), it is just fine. You don't need any relativity. It's useless.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

You just said I cannot explain it my way because you explained it your way. Silly.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

The only reason why relativity wants the 1- V^2/C^2 is because it wants to claim that light does not share the velocity of the source. Everything in the universe shares the velocity of the source.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Until it reaches you. Then it magically changes it velocity to c relative to you, which means it originated much further away than it actually did. Correct?

[Tom Capizzi]

Now you have gone full troll. The only reason 1/(1- V^2/C^2) is there is YOUR STUPID assertion that the velocity of light should include the velocity of its source, you dim-witted knuckle-dragger. This is what is known as proof by contradiction. You assume that relativistic velocity addition is false. I demonstrate that your assumption leads to a contradiction. Logically, this negates your assumption and shit-cans your argument. But you can't handle defeat, so now the fact that a relativistic looking factor is a result of your lunacy, you want to shift the blame to relativity. In relativity, the velocity of light is the same with or without the velocity of the source. You cooked your own goose. And since you feel compelled to lie about it, there is no point for this conversation to continue. Adios, MF!

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 13, 2023 at 9:14:22 AM UTC+5, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 11:14:51 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:50:45 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:44:02 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:33:56 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:29:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 8:15:36 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:01:40 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 4:51:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > None of the ideas you mentioned are necessary to explain the MMX. All that is needed is to accept that light shares the velocity of the source and simple additive velocity calculations. I have just explained to you the MMX using Newtonian physics as you can see as follows: The length of the rod perpendicular to the rod facing the direction of Earth's orbital motion is 10 meters long. It takes light 2/30,000,000th of a second to travel that far and back from the mirror to the detector if the Earth were stationary. Since it does the same when Earth is moving, light necessarily shares the velocity of the source (Earth). Because that perpendicular beam covers a hypotenuse in that period of time it must be moving at C + V. That it is moving faster than C is proven by the fact that the beam moving in the direction of Earths orbit returns in 2/30,000,000ths of a second after covering a total of 20 meters to the mirror and back as shown by the lack of a fringe shift (null result).
> > > > > > > > > > Pulling numbers out of your ass does not constitute proof of anything. You don't even bother to use the correct speed of light. The description is inaccurate, in any case. The distance traveled in the direction of the orbit is shorter than you assume, so the velocity along the hypotenuse is slower than you claim. C+v is meaningless garbage. I don't care that you "explained" the MMX using Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics is only an approximation. It omits relevant information. Even if you were correct about the physics, you are still wrong about the velocity. If the velocity of the Earth is added to the speed of light in the direction of motion, it still wouldn't be c+v along the hypotenuse, because that has to be the vector sum of tangential and normal components. Since the normal component is unaffected by the velocity of the Earth, the velocity along the hypotenuse must be different from c+v. Such a discrepancy would produce a fringe shift. Relativistic calculations eliminate the apparent discrepancies, and confirm the relativistic interpretation.
> > > > > > > > > You could try to understand because 30,000,000ths of a second is the time light takes to travel 10 meters. Try again.
> > > > > > > > Sorry you could not understand something so simple. The added length of the hypotenuse is exactly compensated by the additive velocity which is calculated by the square root of a^2 + b^2 or in the MMX C^2 + 30 km/sec^2.
> > > > > > > That's funny. You claim the velocity along the path of the orbit is c+v, but the velocity along the hypotenuse is only √(c²+v²), which is less than c+v, and the hypotenuse is longer, yet there is no fringe shift!
> > > > > > Obviously, when I said C + V, I was abbreviating the square root of C^2 + V^2.
> > > > > In any case, that is not the correct calculation for perpendicular velocities when one is relativistic. That is the incorrect Newtonian approximation again. Also, the c+v value still applies to the arm that is parallel to the path of the orbit. It still takes less time in one arm than in the other. That means fringe shift. No fringe shift means your elaborate Rube Goldberg scheme fails.
> > > > It is not smart ass to say that relativity is a useless pseudoscience. It is a fact.
> > > What is a fact is that you have failed to explain the MMX. Your blathering about the √(c²+v²) applies to the normal arm only. According to you, the additional length is exactly compensated for by the extra speed. In other words, it is the same as if there were no angle and the light was just moving at c. Or the flight time was 20/c. However, the parallel arm has c+v in one direction and c-v in the other. Flight time is 10/(c+v) + 10/(c-v) = (10(c-v)+10(c+v)/(c²-v²) = 20/c*(1-v²/c²), not 20/c. That's a discrepancy in flight time, and means fringe shift. Your explanation fails.
> > The only reason why relativity wants the 1- V^2/C^2 is because it wants to claim that light does not share the velocity of the source. Everything in the universe shares the velocity of the source.
> Now you have gone full troll. The only reason 1/(1- V^2/C^2) is there is YOUR STUPID assertion that the velocity of light should include the velocity of its source, you dim-witted knuckle-dragger

Light travels with velocity c relative to source, then relative to observer , what happens if the observer changes velocity in mid flight, before the light reaches him?

Light adjusts its speed? What does it do?

[Tom Capizzi]

Light always travels at the same speed. Its Proper velocity is infinite. The observer's perception is always the real projection of infinity. The observer's velocity has nothing to do with it. Infinity is a difficult concept. For example, an infinitely tall stack of $1 bills is the same value as an infinitely tall stack of $20 bills. Common sense would suggest that the stack of $20's would be worth more. But that is only true of a finite stack of both. Common sense fails because infinity is not part of our common experience.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

You lost me

[Tom Capizzi]

It would help if you were a little more specific. The fundamental principle is that the speed of light is constant and invariant with respect to relative velocity. That's the implication of Einstein's 2nd Postulate. Mainstream physics stops there, because they don't answer "Why?" questions. Science by pronouncement. I try to fill in the gaps in their theory with mathematics. There is a detailed derivation of why there is a limiting velocity in the first place, but if this explanation lost you, then that derivation would surely lose you quicker. Instead, let's approach it from a different angle. Countless experiments noted that a moving particle had far more momentum than could be accounted for by Newton's formula for momentum. It was empirically determined that the relativistic momentum is the Lorentz factor times Newtonian momentum. Over a century ago, it was incorrectly proposed that this was due to the property of relativistic mass. It was observed that as coordinate velocity got closer to c, it got harder and harder to accelerate the particle. This was the reason they speculated that it was because the particle got heavier. Simple Newtonian logic. However, it was conclusively shown that mass was a relativistic invariant of the Lorentz transformation of 4-momentum. The empirical formula for relativistic momentum is γmv. Since relativistic mass, γm, does not exist, the logical conclusion is that p = m(γv). The quantity in parentheses is Proper velocity. While relativistic momentum is not linearly proportional to coordinate velocity, it IS linearly proportional to Proper velocity. As v approaches lightspeed, γ and Proper velocity approach infinity. In the limit, at v = c, Proper velocity is infinite. We can use this information to formally define lightspeed as the mathematical limit of the real, cosine projections of Proper velocity as the magnitude of Proper velocity approaches infinity. This is totally consistent with the fact that at any sub-light coordinate velocity, the Newtonian momentum component is just the cosine projection of relativistic momentum, the same as coordinate velocity is the cosine projection of Proper velocity.

Newtonian velocity addition looks simple, just v3 = v1+v2. But it is actually too simple. It is only valid for velocities that are small fractions of c. Relativistic velocity looks more complicated, but it is because the universe prefers hyperbolic trigonometry over Cartesian. In hyperbolic coordinates, velocity is expressed as a hyperbolic angle, otherwise known as a Lorentz boost. It is an easily verifiable fact that the boost of the product of two Lorentz transformation matrices is just the linear sum of the boosts of the individual factor matrices. Hyperbolic angle addition is simple, and exact. Velocity addition is simple, but approximate. The conversion from hyperbolic trig functions to ordinary trig functions makes velocity addition appear to be complicated. But the truth is, it is a faithful translation of the hyperbolic formula.

The point is, hyperbolic angle addition is linear. The lightspeed limit of coordinate velocity corresponds to infinite Proper velocity. In hyperbolic coordinates, infinite Proper velocity corresponds to infinite boost. When you try to combine finite coordinate velocity with the speed of light, you have to use the complicated velocity addition formula. Or you can convert the two velocities to the equivalent hyperbolic coordinates, and simply add the corresponding boosts. When one of the velocities is lightspeed, its hyperbolic angle is infinite. No matter what the other velocity is, adding a finite amount of boost to an infinite amount of boost has no effect on the total. It is still just infinite. Since only lightspeed is paired with infinite Proper velocity, the result converts to the same 1c as the original velocity of light. In your scenario, the observer frame contributes two different amounts of boost at its two different velocities. However, when they are simply added to the infinite boost of the light ray, the result is the same unchanged infinite amount in both cases. When the limit of the cosine projections is taken, the result is the same coordinate velocity, 1c, in both cases. Light does not change speed, regardless of the observer's speed. The cosine projection of infinity is always the same. And all observer perceptions are limited to cosine projections. This applies to time dilation and length contraction as well, but that's another post.

[Tom Capizzi]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 12:22:20 PM UTC-4, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 4:46 AM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> > I do agree that relativity has problems,[...]
>
> The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.

> > Thousands of experiments confirm the predictions of relativity.

> Yes. That is how science works.

> > What they don't confirm is the Einstein Interpretation of the
> > results.

> I have no idea what you mean by this.

> > This is a fundamental problem of a "science" that thinks "Why?" is
> > only a question for philosophers and "If the numbers agree, that's
> > good enough."

> This shows that YOU do not understand how science actually works. We are
> building MODELS of how the world works, and that inherently cannot
> answer "why?" questions. This, of course, goes much deeper than mere
> "numbers that agree".
>
> Tom Roberts

For someone who was pretty confident "The "problems" you mention are all in YOUR head.", you seem to be having a problem answering my questions. I am looking forward to your reply.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/12/23 11:20 PM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> Light travels with velocity c relative to source, then relative to
> observer , what happens if the observer changes velocity in mid
> flight, before the light reaches him?

[Everything in vacuum.]

Nothing special. Relative to the inertial rest frame of the source the
light is always traveling with speed c. Relative to the inertial rest
frame of the observer, the light is always traveling with speed c. If
the observer changes inertial rest frame, these statements still hold;
but during an observer's acceleration it is much more complicated....

Note your wording is unacceptably vague: "relative to source" is
insufficiently precise. You MUST discuss measurements relative to the
inertial rest frame of the source. That alone would remove much of your
confusion, as it makes it clear that this is a property of INERTIAL
FRAMES, not sources or observers.

> Light adjusts its speed?

No, it does NOT.

The underlying reason that every inertial frame measures light to travel
with speed c in vacuum is due to the fact that the measuring instruments
of different frames are oriented differently in spacetime. Local Lorentz
invariance ensures that these orientations always make such measurements
yield the value c. The light itself DOES NOTHING -- it just propagates
along its null geodesic through spacetime.

This is really basic and easy to see. Draw orthogonal x and t axes on a
piece of paper; use units with c=1. Now draw a straight line at an angle
such that dx/dt < 1, and consider it to be the worldline of an observer
moving relative to the inertial frame of the original axes. The moving
observer's clock is oriented along that line, not the original t axis;
that is, the clock measures time intervals projected onto its own
worldline [#]. For rulers in the moving frame it's a bit more
complicated, but the same holds: they are oriented differently from the
x axis of the original frame.

[#] EVERY instrument measures quantities projected onto
its own worldline. For a clock this OUGHT to be obvious,
as it clearly cannot measure the time of an event away
from itself.

Tom Roberts

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

It is never C relative to anyone because it has relative motion like everything in the universe, as Pentcho Valev has tried to convey. That it has C + V and - V is proven by the Doppler shift observed in starlight and the limbs of the Sun. This relative motion was necessarily involved in ascertaining the speed of light from the occultations of Jupiter's moons.

[Laurence Clark Crossen]

No, there is no need for the 1/(1-V^2/C^2) which is relativity and not part of ordinary ballistic calculations of additive velocity. Relativity is completely unnecessary. It wasn't necessary for atomic bombs, for sagnac, for GPS or for anything but to confuse physics for 100 years.

[Tom Capizzi]

LIAR! The factor you disown is a result of your own assertion that the speed of light can add (or subtract) the velocity of its source. In relativity, this is not possible, so in relativity, there is NO FACTOR at all. The velocity of light is c, regardless of the velocity of its source. It's one thing to misrepresent relativity, which you do constantly. It is another to contradict yourself and then lie about it.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

Relative to what

[Tom Capizzi]

Relative to any coordinate system. That's the thing about lightspeed. It is c for all observers, regardless of their state of motion. Mathematically, the Proper velocity of lightspeed is infinite. Do you need to ask "infinite relative to what"? It is infinite relative to you, and the limit of its cosine projection is c relative to you. When you add 0 to a number, the result is the same number. When you add a number to infinity, the result is the same infinity. This is counter-intuitive, but a logical property of infinity, nonetheless.

[gehan.am...@gmail.com]

> Relative to any coordinate system

Can anything have a specific velocity relative to any coordinate system.

[Tom Capizzi]

Lightspeed is the only thing that has the same velocity relative to any (inertial) coordinate system, that can be reached by way of a Lorentz transformation.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/12/23 1:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the
> MMX. [...]

Sure. The MMX is consistent with many different theories:
A. all "ballistic light" theories, such as you mention
(without naming them)
B. all aether theories in which the aether is fully dragged
by the earth
C. Special Relativity
D. all theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR (within their more limited domains)

But the MMX is not the only experiment ever performed. When ALL of the
experiments are considered, only SR remains (within its domain).

> You don't need any relativity. It's useless.

This is just plain false. It's just that YOU do not understand the
experimental record, or basic physics. Your thoughts are bounded by the
paltry limits of your knowledge. There are entire fields of
modern physics that rely in essential ways on relativity:
* High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics)
* Accelerator Physics
* Gravitational Physics
* Cosmology
There are literally thousands of experiments that are consistent with
the predictions of SR and GR, many of which directly refute the other
theories listed above.

You REALLY need to learn basic physics and the experimental record
before attempting to write about them.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/12/23 1:27 PM, Tom Capizzi wrote:
> You "experts" can't even agree on whether length contraction is
> physical or not.

The problem is that "physical" is not well defined -- what do YOU mean
by that word (be specific)?

Consider a rod of length L at rest in inertial frame S, aligned along
the x axis. An inertial frame S' moving relative to S with speed v along
the x axis will measure its length to be L*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That
is what is meant by "length contraction" [#].

It OUGHT to be obvious that measurements by moving observers cannot
possibly affect the rod itself. So in that sense, "length contraction"
is not "physical" -- the rod is not affected [#].

[#] I put "time dilation" and "length contraction" in scare
quotes because these are very poor names for the actual
phenomena -- nothing ever "dilates" or "contracts", it is
only measurements that do so.

And yet, there are physical situations in which "length contraction"
must be included in the model:
* differential cross-sections measured in fixed-target and
collider experiments cannot be reconciled without it.
* the magnetic force from a current-carrying wire on a
charged particle nearby can be computed from Coulomb's
law and the "length contraction" of the electrons in the
wire drifting at a few cm/sec.
* ... surely there are others ...

Note the world we inhabit is observed to obey Einstein's first postulate
(locally). The only way to construct theories consistent with that
postulate and the experimental record is via Local Lorentz Invariance
(LLI) [@] -- that inherently has "length contraction" as a direct
consequence.

[@] This is a mathematical theorem, and is not merely
a limit of our current knowledge.

Theoretically, "time dilation" is directly analogous to "length
contraction" -- both are direct consequences of geometrical projections
between relatively-moving inertial frames. There are many direct
measurements of "time dilation".

Bottom line: rather than taking a crackpot's attitude of focusing on the
meaning of a wishy-washy word like "physical", consider what the theory
actually predicts, and how those predictions are confirmed by experiments.

> "numbers that agree" is not good enough for me.

Hmmmm. You need to learn how science actually works. We perform
experiments that generate numbers, we analyze the physical situations of
those experiments using our physical theories, and derive corresponding
numbers from their predictions. So numbers that agree is all there is to
experimental tests of physical theories.

Yes, it is important to understand how those experiments work. It is
also important to understand how those theories are constructed, as that
is by far the best way to develop future theories. But to do that, look
at the "bottom line" above.

> Let me put it this way. If I tell you why your model is valid or
> not, from fundamental mathematics, are you interested or not?

It is too late for that, as far as SR is concerned: the math of SR has
been proven to be as self-consistent as is Euclidean geometry, and as is
real analysis. So for you to show "from fundamental mathematics" that SR
is invalid, you must also show that major portions of mathematics are
similarly self-inconsistent. From your postings around here, you are
WOEFULLY unprepared to do that.

Whether SR corresponds accurately to the world we inhabit is NOT in the
realm of "fundamental mathematics", is is an experimental issue. To
date, no experiment has refuted SR within its domain.

> Maybe it isn't the job of a physicist to look for an answer to
> "Why?", but if one is handed to him isn't he obligated to consider
> it?

If you understood the difference between world and model, you would not
ask such a silly question, and would understand the reason that such
"why?" questions are beyond the scope of science.

[Hint: science develops models of the world. Such models
discuss and explain how the world works, but simply
cannot address "why" the world is as it is.]

> So, enough of your opinions. Is length contraction physical or not?

I repeat: what do YOU mean by "physical" (be specific)? -- your question
cannot be answered until YOU define YOUR terms.

The rest of us do not care how you define terms, we work with the
physical theories we have, and don't care about the wishy-washy meanings
of such words.

> Relativity requires [...] And you claim there are no problems.

Oh, there most definitely is a problem here: YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT
"LENGTH CONTRACTION" ACTUALLY IS. The problem is not in SR, but in your
misunderstandings.

> [... further nonsensical speculations based on that
> misunderstanding]

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Friday, 19 May 2023 at 19:27:17 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 5/12/23 1:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > There is no need for relativistic corrections to account for the
> > MMX. [...]
>
> Sure. The MMX is consistent with many different theories:
> A. all "ballistic light" theories, such as you mention
> (without naming them)
> B. all aether theories in which the aether is fully dragged
> by the earth
> C. Special Relativity
> D. all theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR (within their more limited domains)
>
> But the MMX is not the only experiment ever performed. When ALL of the
> experiments are considered, only SR remains (within its domain).

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.

> > You don't need any relativity. It's useless.
> This is just plain false. It's just that YOU do not understand the
> experimental record, or basic physics. Your thoughts are bounded by the
> paltry limits of your knowledge. There are entire fields of
> modern physics that rely in essential ways on relativity:
> * High Energy Physics (aka elementary particle physics)
> * Accelerator Physics
> * Gravitational Physics
> * Cosmology
> There are literally thousands of experiments that are consistent with
> the predictions of SR and GR, many of which directly refute the other
> theories listed above.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring
improper t'=t in improper seconds.