Constancy of the speed of light

[Ed Lake]

Previous discussions on this forum prompted me to research all the
different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate. I've found close to
50 so far. I put ten INCORRECT versions and 5 correct versions into
a new paper I've written titled "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of
Light." Some of the incorrect versions are from top-ranked college
physics textbooks.

Here's the link to the paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0104v1.pdf

The paper shows where the nonsensical idea that "Light propagates
through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed
of the source OR OBSERVER" comes from. It's a screwball misinterpretation
of a hypothetical situation where a moving observer DOES see the speed
of light as being the same as what the emitter emitted. But, in general,
if an emitter is moving relative to the source of a light, the observer will
encounter that light as traveling at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the
observer. Countless experiments have confirmed this.

I'm looking for comments about my new paper. If you hate it, I hope
you will explain why.

Ed

[Mikko]

In article <f5ef08cf-04be-4562...@googlegroups.com>,

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Previous discussions on this forum prompted me to research all the
> different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate. I've found close to
> 50 so far. I put ten INCORRECT versions and 5 correct versions into
> a new paper I've written titled "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of
> Light." Some of the incorrect versions are from top-ranked college
> physics textbooks.

The article shows that different sources use different postulates for
special relativity. However the article does not show that any of them
be wrong. All of the quoted alternatives give the same theory so the
differences are not essential. Einstein wanted to make the second
postulate as weak as possible but all authors do not consider that
necessary. None of the postulates is wrong in the sense of being
refuted by an experiment. In fact, special relativity can be based on
postulates that differ from Einstein's even more. One possibility is to
directly postulate the Lorentz transformation as a symmetry of all laws
of nature, as this is the main content of the special relativity.

> I'm looking for comments about my new paper. If you hate it, I hope
> you will explain why.

Link to the article and comments: https://vixra.org/abs/2104.0104

MIkko

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Previous discussions on this forum prompted me to research all the
> different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.

Light has its own motion. If the atom can move
behind it the atom has absolute below light movement
of its own.

Mitchell Raemsch

>
> Ed

[Paparios]

Einstein himself wrote in his 1905 paper the following expresions for the second postulate (which he also called principle)

In page 1, he wrote:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".

In page 4, he wrote:

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

Both of these text express the same principle. Note that "independence of the state of motion of the emitting body" is exactly the same that "the ray of light be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

[Odd Bodkin]

Mikko <mikko....@outlook.com> wrote:
> In article <f5ef08cf-04be-4562...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Previous discussions on this forum prompted me to research all the
>> different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate. I've found close to
>> 50 so far. I put ten INCORRECT versions and 5 correct versions into
>> a new paper I've written titled "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of
>> Light." Some of the incorrect versions are from top-ranked college
>> physics textbooks.
>
> The article shows that different sources use different postulates for
> special relativity. However the article does not show that any of them
> be wrong. All of the quoted alternatives give the same theory so the
> differences are not essential. Einstein wanted to make the second
> postulate as weak as possible but all authors do not consider that
> necessary. None of the postulates is wrong in the sense of being
> refuted by an experiment. In fact, special relativity can be based on
> postulates that differ from Einstein's even more. One possibility is to
> directly postulate the Lorentz transformation as a symmetry of all laws
> of nature, as this is the main content of the special relativity.

Your comment is dead on, but you’re going to find that Ed Lake is not
particularly interested in it. He’s not really capable of following the
1905 paper except for the first few sentences, or any other papers at the
same level.

>
>> I'm looking for comments about my new paper. If you hate it, I hope
>> you will explain why.
>
> Link to the article and comments: https://vixra.org/abs/2104.0104
>
> MIkko
>

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

[Paparios]

El lunes, 19 de abril de 2021 a las 11:28:43 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:

Edward, it is quite funny when you declare as an INCORRECT version of the second postulate the very same text that Einstein put in his 1905 paper:

From your paper, page 3:

2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary" or by a moving body.[6]

From Einstein 1905 paper (page 4)

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

So you are declaring that Einstein did not know what he was talking about and you write:

"All of these incorrect versions of Einstein’s Second Postulate disagree with what Einstein wrote"

Which is evidently quite wrong!!!

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:13:14 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote:
>
> Edward, it is quite funny when you declare as an INCORRECT version of the second
> postulate the very same text that Einstein put in his 1905 paper:
>
> From your paper, page 3:
>
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined
> velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary" or by a moving body.[6]
>
> From Einstein 1905 paper (page 4)
> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined
> velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".
>
> So you are declaring that Einstein did not know what he was talking about and you write:
>
> "All of these incorrect versions of Einstein’s Second Postulate disagree with what Einstein
> wrote"
>
> Which is evidently quite wrong!!!

Yes indeed! Odd is correct that Ed most likely hasn't got past the first page of the 1905
paper. But the REAL test of any theory is how it stacks up against actual experience in the
REAL world, and it's quite clear from communication with spacecraft that Ed's statement
on page 3 that you quoted and Einstein's statement on page 4 of the 1905 paper match
reality.

So Ed is injecting his own private interpretation of Einstein's statement on page 1. I believe
the reason Saint Albert phrased it that way was because it's consistent with the wave
theory of light, and practically every physicist would agree with it. He saved the kicker for
later after he explained a few other things.

[Icke Biggers]

Light is just matter interconnected, which for light's point of view, is
instantaneous right now. You have lots to learn young man. Just give me
the name of your teacher.

[Icke Biggers]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> So Ed is injecting his own private interpretation of Einstein's
> statement on page 1. I believe the reason Saint Albert phrased it that
> way was because it's consistent with the wave theory of light, and
> practically every physicist would agree with it. He saved the kicker
> for later after he explained a few other things.

Not true. No physicists believed him to begin with. Especially the
germans. You don't how evil these people can be.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:00:20 PM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
> In article <f5ef08cf-04be-4562...@googlegroups.com>,

If you claim the Einstein's Second Postulate is "The sun always rises in
the east and sets in the west," and if I say that is wrong, I'm saying it is
wrong because it is NOT Einstein's Second Postulate, I'm not saying what
is in the quote is wrong.

The quotes that I say are WRONG are wrong because they are NOT
Einstein's Second Postulate, yet the authors claim they ARE.

My paper explains that there is a SPECIFIC SITUATION described in Einstein's
paper where light will be measured by a moving OBSERVER to be c. But in
virtually every other situation that is NOT TRUE. Einstein's Second Postulate
says NOTHING about what an observer will measure. It is ONLY about
an EMITTER.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:40:13 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

What Einstein wrote on page 1 IS his "Second Postulate." What Einstein
wrote on page 4, right or wrong, is NOT his second postulate. It is about
how a ray MOVES, not about what is EMITTED.

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:41:39 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mikko <mikko....@outlook.com> wrote:
> > In article <f5ef08cf-04be-4562...@googlegroups.com>,

> > Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> >> Previous discussions on this forum prompted me to research all the
> >> different versions of Einstein's Second Postulate. I've found close to
> >> 50 so far. I put ten INCORRECT versions and 5 correct versions into
> >> a new paper I've written titled "Analyzing 'Constancy of the Speed of
> >> Light." Some of the incorrect versions are from top-ranked college
> >> physics textbooks.
> >
> > The article shows that different sources use different postulates for
> > special relativity. However the article does not show that any of them
> > be wrong. All of the quoted alternatives give the same theory so the
> > differences are not essential. Einstein wanted to make the second
> > postulate as weak as possible but all authors do not consider that
> > necessary. None of the postulates is wrong in the sense of being
> > refuted by an experiment. In fact, special relativity can be based on
> > postulates that differ from Einstein's even more. One possibility is to
> > directly postulate the Lorentz transformation as a symmetry of all laws
> > of nature, as this is the main content of the special relativity.
> Your comment is dead on, but you’re going to find that Ed Lake is not
> particularly interested in it. He’s not really capable of following the
> 1905 paper except for the first few sentences, or any other papers at the
> same level.

I would argue just the opposite. People who have NOT read Einstein's
paper seem to think every thing Einstein ever wrote can be called his
"Second Postulate." IF YOU READ HIS PAPER, there is ONLY ONE PLACE
WHERE HE STATES HIS TWO POSTULATES, and that is on page 1.

Quotes from elsewhere in the paper are parts of his explanation of his
theory BASED UPON HIS TWO POSTULATES.

If you would just read the paper you would see that. He starts by
giving his two postulates, which he says APPEAR TO CONFLICT, and
then he explains his theory, showing that time dilation eliminates the
"apparent conflict" between his two postulates.

Ed

[Paparios]

Can´t you read plain English? Are you are asserting that the words "light is always propagated" is different from the words "light moves"?
Also in page 4 ".....whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body". Can´t you see the word "emitted"?

[Ed Lake]

I should add that Pentcho Valev has been ranting on this forum for
years about how Einstein was WRONG in claiming that the speed of
light is CONSTANT.

What my paper says is that Einstein stated that the speed of light
is VARIABLE. Every different emitter traveling at a different speed
emits light at a DIFFERENT c ---, i.e., a different RATE PER SECOND.

What a lot of people on this forum claim is that Einstein said that
the speed of light is CONSTANT, and they justify that by claiming
it is what his second postulate says. IT ISN'T! It is what he wrote
in his paper about a single EXCEPTION where the speed of light
APPEARS to be constant in ONE SPECIFIC SITUATION.

Ed

[Paparios]

On the contrary he in section 2 starts by writing:

"The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define as follows:"

Note first that he uses "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" to refer to the second postulate.
Secondly he specifically writes "These two principles WE DEFINE as follows"!!! so what follows are the definitions of those two principles or postulates!!!

[Ed Lake]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 3:36:57 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

You are the one who has problems with English, Paparios. I didn't say
anything about "propagated" being different from "moves."

Einstein's Second Postulate on page 1 says NOTHING about any
"'stationary' system of coordinates." It says, "light is always propagated

in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body."

Ed

[Maciej Wozniak]

Paparios, poor halfbrain, even your idiot guru wasn't stupid enough to
insist on this idiocy for a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

[Icke Biggers]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>> 2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates
>> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
>> stationary" or by a moving body.[6]
>> From Einstein 1905 paper (page 4)
>> "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
>> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary
>> or by a moving body".
>
> Paparios, poor halfbrain, even your idiot guru wasn't stupid enough to
> insist on this idiocy for a long time and his GR shit had to reject it.

Not at all, that's why I've been say SR and GR are distinct theories,
numerically you have to apply both to get the trajectory. A one isn't
excluding the other in any way. Use engineering notation with your
instrument. Let me see.

[Paparios]

Well, it appears that he does. In page 1 he writes the following (which he calls the "Principle of Relativity"):

"They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good".

The words "frames of reference" is completely equivalent to "system of coordinates".

In page 4 he defines precisely the two principles or postulates:

Principle of Relativity: "1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion".

Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light: "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body".

These are not explanations or opinions!!! they are DEFINITIONS!!!

[Michael Moroney]

That is because Einstein had to DEFINE the "'stationary' system of
coordinates" first. That is what he does in the section between the
introduction of the two postulates on Page 1 and the more rigorous
definition of the two postulates in terms of the "'stationary' system of
coordinates" on Page 4, now that that has been defined.

Regardless, the two mentions of the second postulate state the exact
same thing. Light always propagates at c regardless of whether it was
emitted by a stationary or moving source. And he specifically NEVER
states light propagates at c relative to the source (other than stating
it propagates at c relative to *any* inertial frame). Don't make up
garbage and then blame Einstein for it.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 8:28:43 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

If light has a constant speed it has
never obeyed gravitational escape velocity.
Escape velocity depends on slow down
by gravity that does not happen to light.
Instead it happens to the atom.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ed Lake]

Yes. There is NOTHING in our known universe that is "stationary."
So, he had to define "stationary" as "not moving relative to something else."
He did that to explain aspects of RELATIVITY, i.e., how something can
be moving or stationary, depending upon how you view it.

>
> Regardless, the two mentions of the second postulate state the exact
> same thing. Light always propagates at c regardless of whether it was
> emitted by a stationary or moving source. And he specifically NEVER
> states light propagates at c relative to the source (other than stating
> it propagates at c relative to *any* inertial frame). Don't make up
> garbage and then blame Einstein for it.

So, all you can do here is argue over WORDS?

Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
of light PER SECOND.

So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
of light is "constant" is FALSE.

Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.

And why does nearly every textbook and physics book have a
DIFFERENT Second Postulate???????

Ed

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
...

> Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> the emitter. It is always c, but c varies

"It is always c, but c varies"

precious.

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
...

> And why does nearly every textbook and physics book have a
> DIFFERENT Second Postulate???????

They didn't expect to have a complete idiot as a reader. Which
is unfortunately the case when Ed Lake is the reader.

[Paparios]

That is totally absurd, since Einstein established the time dilation results based on the premise that the speed of light is constant independently of the state of motion of the emitter.

> So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
> of light is "constant" is FALSE.
>

So you are saying that Einstein when writing the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" was not expressing that the speed of light is constant?

> Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
> will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.
>

Einstein built his model by starting from his two postulates, which in his 1905 paper are called principles:

"§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times

The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
as follows:

1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

These two principles are indeed used to (as the title says) derive the relativity of lengths and times. In section 4 (page 9) he derives the equations related to the length contraction (R√(1-v²/c²)) and time dilation (T/√(1-v²/c²)). If the speed of light is not constant these equations are not valid.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed the Analyst does not like his first impressions corrected.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Cliff Hallston]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 7:00:24 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
> will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.

It's well known that "Einstein's second postulate" (i.e., the principle of the constancy of the speed of light) just asserts that the speed of light has the value c in terms of one particular system of reference, which he called the "stationary" system, independent of the speed of the source. However, everyone also knows that a few pages later he deduces from the combination of the two postulated principles that the speed of light is also c in terms of every other ("moving") system. He shows that the very same pulse of light moves at speed c in terms of *every* system of reference in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good (in the low speed limit). Many later expositions, merely to save time, use this conclusion as their "second postulate".

> It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving, because motion changes
> the length of a second, and c is the speed of light PER SECOND.

Again, time dilation alone cannot account for the constancy of the speed of light in terms of every inertial reference system. It is much too small, and is even in the wrong direction for approaching systems. As Einstein explains very clearly in his paper, the reason the speed of a single pulse of light is the same in terms of relatively moving systems of reference is due to how those systems are related to each other, taking into account not only time dilation, but also length contraction and (most importantly) the relativity of simultaneity.

> So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
> of light is "constant" is FALSE.

Well, Einstein himself refers to his second postulate as "the principle of constancy of the velocity of light". You will find this phrase repeated four times in the paper.

> And why does nearly every textbook and physics book have a
> DIFFERENT Second Postulate???????

If you focus on just the dozen or so expositions of special relativity that Einstein himself wrote, and you will see that his statements of the basic principles were always different... although of course the differences didn't change the meaning, and they resulted in the equivalent theory. You'll also notice that the numbering of the principles was not always the same. Sometimes he introduced the principle of constancy of the velocity of light first, sometimes second, and sometimes not at all (relying instead on Maxwell's equations along with the relativity principle). In some expositions he even noted three more postulates, for a total of five.

[Michael Moroney]

"Stationary" is a relative term, and this was known since Galileo. If I
am stationary relative to Galileo's ship, someone on shore will say both
I and the ship are in motion. I see the cannonball fall straight down
while someone on shore sees it move in a parabolic curve.

> So, he had to define "stationary" as "not moving relative to something else."

Nope. 'Stationary' is his name for a frame "in which Newtonian mechanics
hold good". In other words, what we now call an inertial frame.

> He did that to explain aspects of RELATIVITY, i.e., how something can
> be moving or stationary, depending upon how you view it.

He defines a "main" frame, one which will be frequently used in the rest
of the paper, in which objects/light introduced later can be seen moving
(or stationary) in this frame.

>
>>
>> Regardless, the two mentions of the second postulate state the exact
>> same thing. Light always propagates at c regardless of whether it was
>> emitted by a stationary or moving source. And he specifically NEVER
>> states light propagates at c relative to the source (other than stating
>> it propagates at c relative to *any* inertial frame). Don't make up
>> garbage and then blame Einstein for it.
>
> So, all you can do here is argue over WORDS?

When you twist Einstein's words to say something he never says, certainly.

>
> Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> the emitter.

No, it NEVER states that. If you believe it does, give an exact quote.
Again, please don't invent garbage and blame the garbage on Einstein.

> It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,

Hahahahaha!!! That's the stupidest thing ever!

> because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> of light PER SECOND.

Again, don't make up garbage and blame it on Einstein.

> So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
> of light is "constant" is FALSE.

Wrong, that is exactly what it states.

>
> Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
> will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.

Actually the second postulate he uses is more restricted than that. The
second postulate he uses states all observers stationary in his
'stationary' frame observe the speed of light as c. He then goes on to
PROVE the speed of light is also c in terms of 'moving' (relative to the
'stationary' frame) observers.

>
> And why does nearly every textbook and physics book have a
> DIFFERENT Second Postulate???????

Different from your version? That is because your "version" of the
second postulate is yours only, and is WRONG.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:45:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

He was referring to "emission theory," where the speed of light is added
to the speed of the emitter. "Emission theory" was the predominant
theory before Einstein published his paper on Special Relativity in 1905.

The speed of light is NOT constant. It APPEARS constant. Every EMITTER
emits light at c. But c is the speed of light PER SECOND. And if the length
of a second varies, then c varies.

> > So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
> > of light is "constant" is FALSE.
> >
> So you are saying that Einstein when writing the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" was not expressing that the speed of light is constant?

Right. He was NOT saying the speed of light is constant. He was
writing about how the speed of light APPEARS constant. That is what
RELATIVITY is all about: how things can appear one way in one frame
of reference and different in another frame of reference.

> > Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
> > will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.
> >
> Einstein built his model by starting from his two postulates, which in his 1905 paper are called principles:
>
> "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> as follows:
> 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
> moving body".
>
> These two principles are indeed used to (as the title says) derive the relativity of lengths and times. In section 4 (page 9) he derives the equations related to the length contraction (R√(1-v²/c²)) and time dilation (T/√(1-v²/c²)). If the speed of light is not constant these equations are not valid.

Einstein developed his theory starting from two POSTULATES, which
in is 1905 paper are called "POSTULATES." They are:

1. the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all

frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.

2. light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c

which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Later in his paper he describes various "principles" as he explains
various aspects of his theory. In the Section titled "On the RELATIVITY
of Lengths and Times" he is discussing RELATIVITY and how two
beams of light can APPEAR to be moving at the same speed when
they are actually moving at different speeds. He states a PRINCIPLE
that applies to the situation:

"2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body."

This is the situation he explained in detail when he later wrote about how a beam
of light emitted from the sun at c can also APPEAR to pass an object at c if
that object was ejected from the sun at 1,000 kps. The ejected object is
a "stationary system of coordinates" (it is also an INERTIAL system) and the
light from the sun will APPEAR to pass by at c whether the sun is moving or
stationary. Furthermore, if the emitted object emits a ray of light, that light
will ALSO APPEAR to move at c even though the emitted object is MOVING
relative to the sun.

That whole section of his paper is summarized in the final paragraph:

"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."

In other words, if there was an observer moving alongside the ejected object,
it would see the light from the sun and light from the ejected object do NOT
move at the same speed. Light from the sun moves faster.

Ed

[Paparios]

How can you interpret, from that paragraph, that the relativity of simultaneity implies that the speed of light is not constant?
Because what

Besides that above you wrote:

> > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > of light PER SECOND.

From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!

[Ed Lake]

For those who refuse to look at my new paper, here are TEN DIFFERENT
"Second Postulates" from ten different books:

1. Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.[5]
2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary" or by a moving body.[6]
3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.[7]
4. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.[8]
5. The speed of light in free space has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.[9]
6. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.[10]
7. The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.[11]
8. The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial systems.[12]
9. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.[13]
10. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.[14]

And here are the ten different books:

[5] Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics by Douglas C. Giancoli , 4th edition, 2009, Published by Pearson Education, Inc., page 957. Also Physics – Principles with Applications (7th Edition) by Douglas C. Giancoli, published by Prentice-Hall (2014), page 748).
[6] An Introduction to Mechanics, 2nd edition, 2014) by Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow, published by Cambridge University Press, page 446.
[7] Classical Mechanics (3rd edition) by Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko, published by Addison-Wesley, page 277.
[8] College Physics (Ninth Edition) by Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille, published by Brooks/Cole (2012), page 888.
[9] Concepts of Modern Physics - 6th edition, by Arthur Beiser, published by McGraw-Hill (2003), page 3.
[10] Fundamentals of Modern Physics by Peter J. Nolan, published by Physics Curriculum & Instruction, Inc. (2014), page 1.22.
[11] Fundamentals of Physics, Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics by R. Shankar, published by Yale University Press (2014), page 203.
[12] Introduction to Special Relativity by Robert Resnick, published by John Wiley & Sons (1968), page 35.
[13] Understanding Physics by David Cassidy, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford, published by Springer-Verlog (2002), page 416.
[14] University Physics by George Arfkin, published by Academic Press, Inc. (1984), page 393.

I currently have 53 different versions. I just used those 10
to show a sample.

Ed

[Paparios]

El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:50:56 UTC-4, Paparios escribió:

> > "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of
> > simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
> > are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
> > envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."
> >
> > In other words, if there was an observer moving alongside the ejected object,
> > it would see the light from the sun and light from the ejected object do NOT
> > move at the same speed. Light from the sun moves faster.
> >
> How can you interpret, from that paragraph, that the relativity of simultaneity implies that the speed of light is not constant?

Because what the paragraph is saying is the opposite: the speed of light being constant everywhere produces the skew of the simultaneity.
Check the graphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:28:47 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:

> > > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > > of light PER SECOND.
> From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
> Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!

How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????
That makes no sense at all.

MOTION generates the effects, because MOTION CONFLICTS with
the speed of light, which is the MAXIMUM SPEED allowed in
the universe. We are made of ATOMS which have spinning parts.
When we move, those spinning parts MUST SLOW DOWN, because
they cannot go FASTER than the speed of light. When atoms slow
down, everything made of those atoms slows down. We do not
notice it, but it is happening whenever we move.

Ed

[Paparios]

El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:54:39 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:

> For those who refuse to look at my new paper, here are TEN DIFFERENT
> "Second Postulates" from ten different books:
>
> 1. Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.[5]
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary" or by a moving body.[6]
> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.[7]
> 4. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.[8]
> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.[9]
> 6. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.[10]
> 7. The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.[11]
> 8. The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial systems.[12]
> 9. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.[13]
> 10. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.[14]
>

As I told you before, you second example above is just a word by word copy of what Einstein wrote in his paper as the "Principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" in page 4:

"2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
moving body".

But besides that specific comment, why do you think those ten examples are expressing that second principle (postulate) in a different way as Einstein used them?

[Odd Bodkin]

And these all are synonymous.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:28:47 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
>
>>>> Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
>>>> the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
>>>> because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
>>>> of light PER SECOND.
>> From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
>> Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant
>> generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!
>
> How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????
> That makes no sense at all.

It makes sense in that one can follow a rigorous and deductive logical
argument from the constancy of the speed of light and the invariance of the
laws of physics, and inexorably arrive at time dilation and length
contraction as consequences. This derivation has the force of mathematical
theorem: GIVEN that A is true, THEN B can be shown to be necessarily true
also.

This logical deduction process is conveniently expressed using algebra
which, as you know, has force of deductive proof.

However, the mathematically illiterate cannot read math, and so cannot
follow the logical deduction, and so get lost in understanding how it is a
proven consequence.

>
> MOTION generates the effects, because MOTION CONFLICTS with
> the speed of light, which is the MAXIMUM SPEED allowed in
> the universe. We are made of ATOMS which have spinning parts.
> When we move, those spinning parts MUST SLOW DOWN, because
> they cannot go FASTER than the speed of light. When atoms slow
> down, everything made of those atoms slows down. We do not
> notice it, but it is happening whenever we move.
>
> Ed
>

[Paparios]

El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 13:05:28 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:28:47 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
>
> > > > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > > > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > > > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > > > of light PER SECOND.
> > From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
> > Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!
> How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????
> That makes no sense at all.
>

Well, that is one of the main results presented in Einstein 1905 paper. He used the two postulates to built his Special Relativity model. If you read just the titles of the sections of the paper, you will find how he did it. The titles of the first five sections are the following:

§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity. Here he defines how to synchronize clocks.
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times. Here he defines the postulates he will use.
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. Here he derives the Lorentz Transformation Equations allowing to compare events from different systems of coordinates.
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks. Here he derives the length contraction and time dilation effects.
§ 5. The Composition of Velocities. Here he derives how to add speeds.

> MOTION generates the effects, because MOTION CONFLICTS with
> the speed of light, which is the MAXIMUM SPEED allowed in
> the universe. We are made of ATOMS which have spinning parts.
> When we move, those spinning parts MUST SLOW DOWN, because
> they cannot go FASTER than the speed of light. When atoms slow
> down, everything made of those atoms slows down. We do not
> notice it, but it is happening whenever we move.
>

Nobody knows from where you get such a "conflict"

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/20/2021 12:54 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> For those who refuse to look at my new paper, here are TEN DIFFERENT
> "Second Postulates" from ten different books:
>
> 1. Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer.[5]
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary" or by a moving body.[6]
> 3. The speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.[7]
> 4. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.[8]
> 5. The speed of light in free space has the same value in all inertial frames of reference.[9]
> 6. The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.[10]
> 7. The velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the source and the observer.[11]
> 8. The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial systems.[12]
> 9. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.[13]
> 10. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source and of the observer.[14]
>

They all say the same exact thing.

The second one is the Second Postulate from Einstein's 1905 paper, word
for word.

Some aren't quite right, such as #6, which don't make it clear that
constant speed of light applies only to inertial observers.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:09:25 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

Textbook authors for over a hundred years have been
creating THEIR OWN versions of Einstein's Second Postulate,
because their own versions are easier to use when they explain
THEIR OWN (mis)understandings about time dilation and relativity.

Ed

[Paparios]

Well, that does not make real sense at all. It was Einstein himself who, in section 4 (page 9), introduced length contraction and time dilation, as an obvious consequence of the Lorentz Transformations equations of section 3 (page 5), which in turn are derived from his principles of section 2 (page 4).

So you are stating that Einstein misunderstood his own creation?

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:20:54 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 13:05:28 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
> > On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > > El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:28:47 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
> >
> > > > > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > > > > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > > > > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > > > > of light PER SECOND.
> > > From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
> > > Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!
> > How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????
> > That makes no sense at all.
> >
> Well, that is one of the main results presented in Einstein 1905 paper. He used the two postulates to built his Special Relativity model. If you read just the titles of the sections of the paper, you will find how he did it.

I didn't ask how Einstein figured things out. I asked: How can
the speed of light GENERATE time dilation effects?

It's like saying a highway sign causes or generates speeding tickets.
No, it is the speeders who ignore the sign who cause speeding tickets.

The speed of light cannot CAUSE anything. It's just a basic FACT.

The FACT that the speed of light is the highest speed allowed in the
universe CAN cause effects. It says that, if something tries to exceed
that limit, Nature will prevent it.

> The titles of the first five sections are the following:
>
> § 1. Definition of Simultaneity. Here he defines how to synchronize clocks.
> § 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times. Here he defines the postulates he will use.
> § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. Here he derives the Lorentz Transformation Equations allowing to compare events from different systems of coordinates.
> § 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks. Here he derives the length contraction and time dilation effects.
> § 5. The Composition of Velocities. Here he derives how to add speeds.
> > MOTION generates the effects, because MOTION CONFLICTS with
> > the speed of light, which is the MAXIMUM SPEED allowed in
> > the universe. We are made of ATOMS which have spinning parts.
> > When we move, those spinning parts MUST SLOW DOWN, because
> > they cannot go FASTER than the speed of light. When atoms slow
> > down, everything made of those atoms slows down. We do not
> > notice it, but it is happening whenever we move.
> >
> Nobody knows from where you get such a "conflict"

If the speed of light is the fastest speed allowed in the universe,
any rapidly spinning object that moves laterally through space
can CONFLICT with that maximum allowed speed. Its spin IS motion
AND its lateral speed IS motion. When both motions are going in the
same direction, the spin COULD exceed the maximum allowed
speed IF the laws of nature didn't PREVENT exceeding the maximum
allowed speed.

But, another way of looking at it is that particles spin at a fixed rate
per second. When the particle moves, a second gets longer and
the spin rate slows down. That is certainly easier to understand,
but it begins with an ASSUMPTION that all atoms of a given type
contain particles that spin at a given rate. And that rate is not only
the rate of spin, it is also the rate that time passes for that particle
and atom.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:30:41 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

How can you get that from what I wrote???? I wrote that AUTHORS
of text books don't fully understand Einstein's "creation," so they just
explain it in the best way they can. That is why there are so many
versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.

I've collected about 50 different versions, so far.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/20/2021 1:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????

That is what the entire Kinematical Part of Einstein's 1905 SR paper is
all about, in detail! It is obvious you never read through it with any
comprehension, despite claiming to have found four hundred eleventy
twelve "errors" in it.

> That makes no sense at all.
>
> MOTION generates the effects, because MOTION CONFLICTS with
> the speed of light, which is the MAXIMUM SPEED allowed in
> the universe. We are made of ATOMS which have spinning parts.
> When we move, those spinning parts MUST SLOW DOWN, because
> they cannot go FASTER than the speed of light. When atoms slow
> down, everything made of those atoms slows down. We do not
> notice it, but it is happening whenever we move.

It makes no sense (to you) because you added an assumption that atoms
have spinning parts which must slow down when something moves fast
(relative to what?). I can only conclude it is relative to some sort of
absolutely stationary frame, something discredited by Galileo and
conflicting with the First Postulate.

Einstein's SR paper did not mention any spinny things in atoms, that was
something YOU added. Plus you mentioned the spinning atoms moving fast
without reference to motion relative to something, a mistake Einstein
wouldn't have made (that goes back to Galileo).

[Python]

Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 3:30:41 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:

...

>> So you are stating that Einstein misunderstood his own creation?
>
> How can you get that from what I wrote???? I wrote that AUTHORS
> of text books don't fully understand Einstein's "creation," so they just
> explain it in the best way they can. That is why there are so many
> versions of Einstein's Second Postulate.
>
> I've collected about 50 different versions, so far.

Looks like you and Thomas Heger are in some kind of competition in
stupidity.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:39:28 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> And, as I told you before, that "principle" is NOT Einstein's Second Postulate.

It is. In the paper's introduction Einstein says he will take as his first postulate (assumption) the principle of relativity, and he takes as his second postulate what he later calls the principle of constancy of the velocity of light. Thus he announces that he will postulate (assume) these two physical principles. Then in the body of the paper he gives the precise definitions of those two principles, on which he bases the derivation of special relativity in the remainder of the paper.

A couple of months after writing that June paper, he wrote a follow-up paper (September) in which he referred back to the June paper. He says "There I based myself upon the Maxwell-Hertz equations and on... the principle of relativity... The principle of constancy of the velocity of light used there is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." (That's because Maxwell's equations imply that the speed of light in vacuum is c.) So, just weeks after writing the June paper, Einstein is summarizing that his reasoning was was based on the two principles, namely, relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light.

Likewise in every one of the subsequent expositions of special relativity that Einstein wrote, he states that it's based on those two principles, which he postulated in the June 1905 paper. For example, in a 1907 paper on applying special relativity to the Stark Effect he wrote: "I will show here briefly that the principle of relativity in conjunction with the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light makes it possible to predict the effect". In a later paper in 1907 he expressed the "second postulate" this way: "We assume [postulate] that clocks can be adjusted in such a way that the propagation velocity of every light ray in vacuum -- measured by means of these clocks -- becomes everywhere equal to a universal constant c... We call this the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light". Likewise in his Princeton lectures (1921) he explicitly bases special relativity on the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.

In every exposition he ever wrote, including the very first in 1905, he based special relativity on those two principles, which he took as postulates/assumptions. In his popular booklet of 1916 he plainly described that each individual ray of light moves at speed c in terms of every frame.

> Einstein's Second Postulate is about what happens in "empty
> space." The made-up versions are about what happens in
> "frames of reference" and "inertial systems,"...

But Einstein himself describes his premises and reasoning in exactly those terms (systems of reference, coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, etc.). You claim to be advocating Einstein's view, so it's illogical for you to deny everything he wrote and then claim to be championing what he wrote.

Did you email the Hebrew University to ask about the origin of that bogus translation?

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:20:54 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 13:05:28 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
>>> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:50:56 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
>>>> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 12:28:47 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
>>>
>>>>>> Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
>>>>>> the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
>>>>>> because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
>>>>>> of light PER SECOND.
>>>> From where in the paper do you get that "motion changes the length of a second"?
>>>> Actually, is the other way around: The speed of light being constant
>>>> generates the time dilation and length contraction effects!!!!
>>> How can the speed of light generate time dilation and length contraction effects????
>>> That makes no sense at all.
>>>
>> Well, that is one of the main results presented in Einstein 1905 paper.
>> He used the two postulates to built his Special Relativity model. If you
>> read just the titles of the sections of the paper, you will find how he did it.
>
> I didn't ask how Einstein figured things out. I asked: How can
> the speed of light GENERATE time dilation effects?
>
> It's like saying a highway sign causes or generates speeding tickets.
> No, it is the speeders who ignore the sign who cause speeding tickets.
>
> The speed of light cannot CAUSE anything. It's just a basic FACT.

The symmetry that makes the speed of light constant is also what produces
the time dilation and length contraction.

[Odd Bodkin]

They’re all synonymous and agree with what Einstein said.

>
> I've collected about 50 different versions, so far.
>
> Ed
>

[Michael Moroney]

Relative to what?

> Its spin IS motion
> AND its lateral speed IS motion. When both motions are going in the
> same direction, the spin COULD exceed the maximum allowed
> speed IF the laws of nature didn't PREVENT exceeding the maximum
> allowed speed.

Which is why you'd use formula derived in the "Composition of
Velocities" from Part 1, Section 5 of the SR paper. This is no
different than asking "If I am in a spaceship moving at 0.9c relative to
Earth and the ship fires a rocket forward at 0.9c, does that mean the
rocket is moving at 1.8c relative to Earth?" No, the earth observer will
measure it moving at 0.9945c.

Same with a rotating whatever on the spaceship, with its axis of
rotation perpendicular to the spaceship's motion. If it's rotating at
such a rate its surface moves at 0.3c, on one side it moves at the same
direction as the spaceship and moves at 0.945c relative to earth, and
the surface on the other side is at 0.4724c from earth. And yes, the
view from earth will be distorted and won't be seen as round.

[snip crap caused by misassumptions]

[rotchm]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 4:35:37 PM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

>
> I've collected about 50 different versions, so far.

Can you back up such a claim?
You only presented 10 of them...fishy...

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 16:45:52 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 10:00:24 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's Second Postulate on page 1 says NOTHING about any
> > > > "'stationary' system of coordinates." It says, "light is always propagated
> > > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
> > > > state of motion of the emitting body."
> > > That is because Einstein had to DEFINE the "'stationary' system of
> > > coordinates" first. That is what he does in the section between the
> > > introduction of the two postulates on Page 1 and the more rigorous
> > > definition of the two postulates in terms of the "'stationary' system of
> > > coordinates" on Page 4, now that that has been defined.
> > Yes. There is NOTHING in our known universe that is "stationary."
> > So, he had to define "stationary" as "not moving relative to something else."
> > He did that to explain aspects of RELATIVITY, i.e., how something can
> > be moving or stationary, depending upon how you view it.
> > >
> > > Regardless, the two mentions of the second postulate state the exact
> > > same thing. Light always propagates at c regardless of whether it was
> > > emitted by a stationary or moving source. And he specifically NEVER
> > > states light propagates at c relative to the source (other than stating
> > > it propagates at c relative to *any* inertial frame). Don't make up
> > > garbage and then blame Einstein for it.
> > So, all you can do here is argue over WORDS?
> >

> > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > of light PER SECOND.
> >

> That is totally absurd, since Einstein established the time dilation results based on the premise that the speed of light is constant independently of the state of motion of the emitter.

Even he wasn't mad enough to insist on such an idiotic
permise for long; his GR shit had to withdraw from it, but
"time dilation" survived. Still, anyone can check GPS; serious
clocks keep indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always
did.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 19:17:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> contraction as consequences. This derivation has the force of mathematical
> theorem: GIVEN that A is true, THEN B can be shown to be necessarily true
> also.

Like, for instance, "a triangle is a right triangle" implies for
sure that "a^2+b^2=c^2".

Sorry, Bod, you're too dumb to understand that, but the
authority of mathematical theorems has been already
ruined by the cheerful games of your bunch of idiots.
I've told you - you're a bunch of troglodytes, not understanding
what you're destroying.

[Odd Bodkin]

The Euclidean geometry as a deity: “Forgive them, Father Euclid, they know
not what they do.”

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

[Ed Lake]

As usual, the arguments on this forum are getting too absurd for me.
But, maybe we can refine the dispute and get something productive.

Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate:

1. "Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c,
independent of the motion of the source."

From: Modern Physics (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn,
published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12.

2. "In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the
light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion."

From: “Subtle is the Lord” - The Science and Life of Albert Einstein by Abraham
Pais, Oxford University Press (2005), page 141

3. Postulate 2: "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

From: Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity by William Lane Craig, published
by Springer-Science (2001), page 25.

4. "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

From: Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity by
Rafael Ferraro, published by Springer Science (2007), page 47.

5. "Light always propagates in empty space with a definite velocity V that is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.”

From: Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, published by
Simon & Schuster (2007), Chapter 6.

And here are 5 INCORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate from the
list of 10 provided in an earlier post in this thread:

1. Second postulate (constancy of the speed of light): Light
propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of
the speed of the source or observer.[5]

2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a

vacuum has the same value, c = 2.997 924 58 x 108 m/s, in all
inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer
or the velocity of the source emitting the light.[8]

3 The speed of light in free space has the same value for all

observers, regardless of their state of motion.[10]

4. Light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are

propagated in empty space with a constant velocity c which is
independent of the motion of the observer or the emitting body.[13]

5. The speed of light, is constant, the same in all inertial

reference frames, independent of any relative motion of the source
and of the observer.[14]

What is the difference? The CORRECT versions only say that the
speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the EMITTER or SOURCE.
The INCORRECT versions all say that the speed of light is c for all
OBSERVERS IN ADDITION TO THE SOURCE OR EMITTER.

Light from a source always travels at c, but it will hit a MOVING OBSERVER
at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward or away from
the light source.

That is demonstrated by radar guns every day. And I have a list of other
ways it is verified: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
a MOVING OBSERVER at c?

Ed

[Paparios]

Besides looking for how those authors wrote the second principle or postulate, have you read anything else of those books. Are the Lorentz Transformation Equations the same Einstein wrote in his paper? Are the time dilation and length contraction equations the same Einstein derived in his paper?

For instance, in the book Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics, 9th edition, 2014, from Serway and Jewett, in section 39.3 (page 1198) they describe the postulates as follows:

"39.3 Einstein’s Principle of Relativity
In the previous section, we noted the impossibility of measuring the speed of the ether with respect to the Earth and the failure of the Galilean velocity transformation equation in the case of light. Einstein proposed a theory that boldly removed these difficulties and at the same time completely altered our notion of space and time. He based his special theory of relativity on two postulates:

1. The principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference frames.

2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in vacuum has the same value, c m/s, in all inertial frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the velocity of the source emitting the light.

The first postulate asserts that all the laws of physics—those dealing with mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, thermodynamics, and so on—are the same in all reference frames moving with constant velocity relative to one another. This postulate is a generalization of the principle of Galilean relativity, which refers only to the laws of mechanics. From an experimental point of view, Einstein’s principle of relativity means that any kind of experiment (measuring the speed of light, for example) performed in a laboratory at rest must give the same result when performed in a laboratory moving at a constant velocity with respect to the first one. Hence, no preferred inertial reference frame exists, and it is impossible to detect
absolute motion.
Note that postulate 2 is required by postulate 1: if the speed of light were not the same in all inertial frames, measurements of different speeds would make it possible to distinguish between inertial frames. As a result, a preferred, absolute frame could be identified, in contradiction to postulate 1".

Note that it is not enough just to write the postulates, but you need some explanations regarding what each postulate refers to.

In you view, postulate 2 in this book is wrong, because they use words such as inertial frames, observer and source, which are different from what Einstein wrote in page 1 ("light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body").

In physics a frame of reference is a system of coordinates (t,x,y,z). An observer is typically where measuring instruments are located. Typically the observer is located at coordinates (0,0,0,0) of his frame of reference. An inertial frame is a frame which moves at constant speed (v) with respect to another frame. The source and the emitter are synonymous words. Vacuum is the same as "empty space" and the emitter (source) is located at coordinates (0,0,0,0) on the frame of reference where the equations of mechanics hold good.

Therefore, this postulate 2 above says exactly the same Einstein expressed in page 1 and page 4 of his paper.

[Odd Bodkin]

What’s interesting is that Einstein himself says that the speed of the same
light is constant regardless of the motion of the observers. Numerous
places where he says this have been pointed out to you, and in fact
Einstein shows this follows as a strict logical deduction from the Lorentz
transforms.

What you seem to be saying is that IT DOES NOT MATTER what Einstein said
other than in the one sentence in the one translation you’re looking at.
You want to ONLY examine whether what Einstein said in THAT ONE SENTENCE
matches exactly what textbooks say.

I think you’ll find that what textbook authors will say is that their
expression of the second postulate includes more information supplied by
Einstein than in that one sentence. And since it all still follows from
Einstein and the Lorentz transforms, then it is incorrect to say that the
textbook versions is substantively different than what Einstein believed to
be true.

What you are doing is variously called cherry-picking or taking quotes out
of context or snipping for spin. It’s not a good habit for an “analyst”.

>
> Light from a source always travels at c, but it will hit a MOVING OBSERVER
> at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward or away from
> the light source.
>
> That is demonstrated by radar guns every day. And I have a list of other
> ways it is verified: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?

Yes of course, and this has been mentioned to you before. You can use an
earth-mounted telescope to measure the light coming from a star, and do it
in March and October. The difference in those dates is the motion of the
Earth in its orbit around the sun, with the Earth traveling toward the star
in one month and then away from the star six months later. This motion is
not small, switching from 67,000 mph in one direction to 67,000 mph in the
other direction. The effect of the observer’s motion is quite noticeable in
the Doppler shifting of the light from the star, so it’s not like it’s an
inconsequential effect.

Now, the frequency of the starlight is measurable, as is the wavelength,
both by independent methods that make no assumptions about the other. And
as you may know, multiplying the measured frequency by the measured
wavelength gives unerringly the speed of the light relative to the
observer.

That observation, performed literally hundreds of times with different
stars (and in fact other light sources) at different Earth observatories,
always produces the same numerical answer for that speed.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

Do you understand what you write??? You CONFIRM that the speed
of light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v.

It shows up in the Doppler Shift!

There is NO WAY to measure the ONE-WAY speed of light, but we can
measure differences in the received speed of light via the Doppler Shift.

I asked: Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits

a MOVING OBSERVER at c?"

And you respond with an example of where light from an emitter hits
a moving observer at c+v and c-v!

Ed

[Python]

Well, Ed. Not quite. You do have issue with reading, right?

[Cliff Hallston]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 8:04:59 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate:

Of your five "correct" versions, only Item 2 refers to the speed of light "in any given inertial frame". The other four refer to the speed of light in "vacuum" or "empty space" but do not specify a reference system. Likewise of your five "incorrect" versions, items 2 and 5 refer to the speed of light in terms of "all inertial frames", whereas the other three refer to "vacuum" or "empty space" and do not specify any reference system.

The speed of light is affected by the medium through which it travels, due to the index of refraction. For example, it travels significantly slower in water than in air. So, when talking about the speed of light being c, we need to stipulate that we are talking about a region that is essentially devoid of matter, i.e., vacuum, aka empty space. That's why authors include that stipulation, but that doesn't actually constitute a sufficient basis for quantifying the speed. A correct statement of Einstein's principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is:

In terms of at least one specific inertial reference system
(as defined), light propagates in vacuum (empty space) at
the speed c, regardless of the speed of the source.

Einstein then combines this postulate with the first postulate (the principle of relativity) to deduce the stronger fact that in terms of *every* inertial reference system (as defined), light propagates in vacuum (empty space) at the speed c, regardless of the speed of the source. The bulk of his June 1905 paper is devoted to explaining how a single ray of light can propagate at the speed c in terms of two relatively moving frames of reference. He shows that it is true because the relationship between frames of reference entails time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity.

> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?

All objects (including "observers") are moving in terms of various frames of reference. The experiments that show that light travels at speed c (in vacuum) in terms of every inertial frame of reference consist of experiments with accelerating particles that show that energy has inertia (E=mc^2), which implies that inertial reference systems are related in such a way (with length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity) that the speed of light is c in all of them.

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/21/2021 11:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> As usual, the arguments on this forum are getting too absurd for me.

Which is because of your inability/refusal to understand what people
have told you.

> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?
>

Moving relative to what? Every inertial object is moving relative to
some frame and stationary in some other frame.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 10:54:12 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
>>> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?
>> Yes of course, and this has been mentioned to you before. You can use an
>> earth-mounted telescope to measure the light coming from a star, and do it
>> in March and October. The difference in those dates is the motion of the
>> Earth in its orbit around the sun, with the Earth traveling toward the star
>> in one month and then away from the star six months later. This motion is
>> not small, switching from 67,000 mph in one direction to 67,000 mph in the
>> other direction. The effect of the observer’s motion is quite noticeable in
>> the Doppler shifting of the light from the star, so it’s not like it’s an
>> inconsequential effect.
>>
>> Now, the frequency of the starlight is measurable, as is the wavelength,
>> both by independent methods that make no assumptions about the other. And
>> as you may know, multiplying the measured frequency by the measured
>> wavelength gives unerringly the speed of the light relative to the
>> observer.
>>
>> That observation, performed literally hundreds of times with different
>> stars (and in fact other light sources) at different Earth observatories,
>> always produces the same numerical answer for that speed.
>
> Do you understand what you write??? You CONFIRM that the speed
> of light hits a moving observer at c+v or c-v.

Nope. What I said is that the Doppler shift is observed.

This means both the wavelength is observed to change as a result of the
observer motion, and that the frequency is observed to change as a result
of observer motion.

But I also said, the product of that changed wavelength and the changed
frequency still is unerringly the speed of the light relative to the
observer. That answer always comes out to be c, for lots of observatories
and lots of stars. Not any value other than c.

This really shouldn’t be a surprise to you. Let’s suppose that from
December to March, the Earth’s motion makes the wavelength shift upward by
0.5 percent. During the same interval, the frequency is separately observed
to shift downwards by 0.5 percent. When you multiply the shifted numbers,
the answer — amazing! — ends up being the same in March as it was in
December — c!!

>
> It shows up in the Doppler Shift!
>
> There is NO WAY to measure the ONE-WAY speed of light, but we can
> measure differences in the received speed of light via the Doppler Shift.
>
> I asked: Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits
> a MOVING OBSERVER at c?"
>
> And you respond with an example of where light from an emitter hits
> a moving observer at c+v and c-v!
>
> Ed
>
>

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The speed of light is a constant across universal space...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 16:11:44 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 19:17:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> contraction as consequences. This derivation has the force of mathematical
> >> theorem: GIVEN that A is true, THEN B can be shown to be necessarily true
> >> also.
> >
> > Like, for instance, "a triangle is a right triangle" implies for
> > sure that "a^2+b^2=c^2".
> >
> > Sorry, Bod, you're too dumb to understand that, but the
> > authority of mathematical theorems has been already
> > ruined by the cheerful games of your bunch of idiots.
> > I've told you - you're a bunch of troglodytes, not understanding
> > what you're destroying.
> >
> The Euclidean geometry as a deity

It seems that a mathematical theorem has only the force
of a mathematical theorem when an idiot woodworker
is accepting it.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Oh ah oh, Giant Guru himself.
Well, even him wasn't stupid enough to insist
on such an idiocy for long and his GR shit
had to reject it.

[Odd Bodkin]

And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
though not lost on actual mathematicians.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, since Ed Lake is insisting that the textbooks have misrepresented
Einstein, it does seem relevant.

Not to you, of course, but relevancy is not your bag.

> Well, even him wasn't stupid enough to insist
> on such an idiocy for long and his GR shit
> had to reject it.
>

[Ed Lake]

And observing a Doppler Shift means you did NOT receive the light at c,
you received it at c+v or c-v!

>
> This means both the wavelength is observed to change as a result of the
> observer motion, and that the frequency is observed to change as a result
> of observer motion.

Right!! But a change in wavelength is the SAME as a change in frequency
when talking about a Doppler Shift.

>
> But I also said, the product of that changed wavelength and the changed
> frequency still is unerringly the speed of the light relative to the
> observer. That answer always comes out to be c, for lots of observatories
> and lots of stars. Not any value other than c.

NONSENSE! It may be ASSUMED to be c, but that is only because they
have no way to measure the one-way speed of arriving light. IN REALITY
the light is arriving at c+v or c-v where c is the speed of the light the
EMITTER emitted and v is the speed of the OBSERVER.

>
> This really shouldn’t be a surprise to you. Let’s suppose that from
> December to March, the Earth’s motion makes the wavelength shift upward by
> 0.5 percent. During the same interval, the frequency is separately observed
> to shift downwards by 0.5 percent. When you multiply the shifted numbers,
> the answer — amazing! — ends up being the same in March as it was in
> December — c!!

Don't you understand what you are saying???? When you APPEAR to get more
waves PER SECOND (a HIGHER FREQUENCY) that means the wavelength APPEARS
to be shorter. When you APPEAR to get fewer waves PER SECOND (a LOWER
FREQUENCY) that means the wavelength APPEARS to be greater. In REALITY,
all that is happening is that in the first situation the light is arriving at c+v (where
v is your speed) and in the second situation the light is arriving at c-v. The light
wavelength and frequency that was EMITTED is identical in both situations!

LIGHT HITS THE MOVING OBSERVER AT c+v or c-v NOT at c!

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

No. See below.

>
>>
>> This means both the wavelength is observed to change as a result of the
>> observer motion, and that the frequency is observed to change as a result
>> of observer motion.
>
> Right!! But a change in wavelength is the SAME as a change in frequency
> when talking about a Doppler Shift.

No, they are different. As I said, the measurements are independent and
make no assumptions about the other. Indeed, in the case of sound in air, a
Doppler effect can happen when the observer moves relative to the air. In
this case, the independent measurements reveal that the wavelength is
unchanged but the frequency is shifted. Multiplying the two, you do get a
different speed of the sound relative to the observer (and in fact the
result coincides with s+v or s-v, where s is the speed of sound relative to
the air). But though this is true for sound, it is not true for light. The
product of the measured frequency and wavelength always ends up c.

>
>>
>> But I also said, the product of that changed wavelength and the changed
>> frequency still is unerringly the speed of the light relative to the
>> observer. That answer always comes out to be c, for lots of observatories
>> and lots of stars. Not any value other than c.
>
> NONSENSE! It may be ASSUMED to be c,

No. No assumptions are necessary. The wavelength is measured. The frequency
is measured a different way. You now have two measured numbers. Multiply
them. There is no assumption there at all. The product of the two numbers
MUST be the speed of the signal relative to the observer. The product ends
up by measurements to be always the same number. There is no assumption in
these measurements.

> but that is only because they
> have no way to measure the one-way speed of arriving light. IN REALITY
> the light is arriving at c+v or c-v where c is the speed of the light the
> EMITTER emitted and v is the speed of the OBSERVER.
>
>>
>> This really shouldn’t be a surprise to you. Let’s suppose that from
>> December to March, the Earth’s motion makes the wavelength shift upward by
>> 0.5 percent. During the same interval, the frequency is separately observed
>> to shift downwards by 0.5 percent. When you multiply the shifted numbers,
>> the answer — amazing! — ends up being the same in March as it was in
>> December — c!!
>
> Don't you understand what you are saying???? When you APPEAR to get more
> waves PER SECOND (a HIGHER FREQUENCY) that means the wavelength APPEARS
> to be shorter.

No, it means the frequency is MEASURED to be higher. Period. You’ve just
done a frequency measurement.

Now put that instrument down, the one that measured frequency, and pick up
another one. You are about to make an INDEPENDENT measurement, this time of
the wavelength.

The two measurements use different instruments. They are independent.

> When you APPEAR to get fewer waves PER SECOND (a LOWER
> FREQUENCY) that means the wavelength APPEARS to be greater. In REALITY,
> all that is happening is that in the first situation the light is arriving at c+v (where
> v is your speed) and in the second situation the light is arriving at c-v. The light
> wavelength and frequency that was EMITTED is identical in both situations!
>
> LIGHT HITS THE MOVING OBSERVER AT c+v or c-v NOT at c!
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Python]

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 16:11:44 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 19:17:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> contraction as consequences. This derivation has the force of mathematical
>>>>> theorem: GIVEN that A is true, THEN B can be shown to be necessarily true
>>>>> also.
>>>>
>>>> Like, for instance, "a triangle is a right triangle" implies for
>>>> sure that "a^2+b^2=c^2".
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, Bod, you're too dumb to understand that, but the
>>>> authority of mathematical theorems has been already
>>>> ruined by the cheerful games of your bunch of idiots.
>>>> I've told you - you're a bunch of troglodytes, not understanding
>>>> what you're destroying.
>>>>
>>> The Euclidean geometry as a deity
>>
>> It seems that a mathematical theorem has only the force
>> of a mathematical theorem when an idiot woodworker
>> is accepting it.
>>
>
> And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
> on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
> though not lost on actual mathematicians.

Well, "information engineering" is doing well :-) and is definitely
not involving in any serious project people like Maciej Wozniak, don't
worry.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 21:08:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
> on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
> though not lost on actual mathematicians.

So, ask any mathematician, poor idiot. Or read some books
you like so much. An axiom is always hold, by definition.

Stick to your wood, information is too complicated
for you.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 21:42:42 UTC+2, Python wrote:

> > And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
> > on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
> > though not lost on actual mathematicians.
> Well, "information engineering" is doing well :-) and is definitely
> not involving in any serious project people like Maciej Wozniak, don't
> worry.

So, how are these geostationary satellites, poor halfbrain?
Are they or aren't they moving wrt each other?

[Ed Lake]

Your measurements are measurements PER SECOND. When the OBSERVER
is moving toward the emitter, he receives MORE WAVES PER SECOND than
what was actually emitted. His instruments MEASURE more waves per second.
When you move into arriving waves, you hit more waves per second and thus
your instruments will MEASURE a HIGHER FREQUENCY OF WAVES.

This is what RADAR GUNS are all about. They measure changes in frequency
due to a ONCOMING RECEIVER/TARGET hitting emitted light and CONVERTING
that light into a higher frequency. The target sends light back to the radar gun
that has that higher frequency, and the gun MEASURES the difference between
the FREQUENCY it transmitted and the FREQUENCY it got back.

THERE IS NO WAY TO MEASURE WAVE LENGTHS. We can only measure FREQUENCY
and ASSUME that, since light travels 299,792,458 METERS in one second, that
means we can divide the frequency into 299,792,458 METERS and get the
wavelength.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

There's a wavelength calculator at this link: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wavelength

Just plunk in the frequency and it will compute the wavelength.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

The frequency measurement is definitely a measurement of cycles per second.


The wavelength measurement is definitely not a measurement if anything per
second. It’s a measurement of a distance between peaks.

Perhaps you don’t understand how wavelength is measured. It is definitely
not a measurement that relies on some frequency measurement.

> When the OBSERVER
> is moving toward the emitter, he receives MORE WAVES PER SECOND than
> what was actually emitted. His instruments MEASURE more waves per second.
> When you move into arriving waves, you hit more waves per second and thus
> your instruments will MEASURE a HIGHER FREQUENCY OF WAVES.
>
> This is what RADAR GUNS are all about. They measure changes in frequency
> due to a ONCOMING RECEIVER/TARGET hitting emitted light and CONVERTING
> that light into a higher frequency. The target sends light back to the radar gun
> that has that higher frequency, and the gun MEASURES the difference between
> the FREQUENCY it transmitted and the FREQUENCY it got back.
>
> THERE IS NO WAY TO MEASURE WAVE LENGTHS.

That is flat out wrong, Ed, though I’m not surprised you’re unaware of how
this is done. (Several ways, actually.) Perhaps you should check claims
like this before issuing some all caps statement you’ll later regret.

Did you know, for example, that you can measure the wavelength of light
just by letting a drop of oil spread on the surface of a pool of water?
Just like the oily puddles in a parking lot.

> We can only measure FREQUENCY
> and ASSUME that, since light travels 299,792,458 METERS in one second, that
> means we can divide the frequency into 299,792,458 METERS and get the
> wavelength.

Try finding out how wavelength is actually measured. Hint: Newton did it
one way, a century before Maxwell laid out his laws of light and
electromagnetism.

[Odd Bodkin]

Right. But that’s not how wavelength is MEASURED.

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/21/21 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate: [...]

You are mistaken. None of the 5 you quote are complete.

One must wonder why you omitted Einstein's original second postulate:

2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

Remembering that his “stationary” system of co-ordinates is an arbitrary
inertial frame, this is clearly a better statement than any of the ones
you quoted, because it is not only correct, it is COMPLETE. (Of course
"completeness" is measured relative to this.)

> And here are 5 INCORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate

> [...]

Some are correct, some aren't. You don't know enough about SR to be able
to distinguish correct from incorrect in this context.

> What is the difference? The CORRECT versions only say that the
> speed of light is c regardless of the motion of the EMITTER or
> SOURCE. The INCORRECT versions all say that the speed of light is c
> for all OBSERVERS IN ADDITION TO THE SOURCE OR EMITTER.

You are wrong. This is your fundamental failure to understand SR,
apparently because you do not understand basic logic. Let us apply basic
logic:

Start with this sequence of statements from Einstein's 1905 paper "On
the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies":
A) Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our
presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of
co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced
hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.” [I.1]
B) 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
change are not affected, whether these changes of state be
referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates
in uniform translatory motion. [I.2]
C) 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-

ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be

emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. [I.2]

[Note that my (B) and (C) are Einstein's statements of
his two postulates; my (A) is his definition of
"stationary system", which is just a label (i.e. it
has no meaning, as his final sentence says).]

[Note also that the specific language Einstein used
in (A) implies that the "stationary system" is an
ARBITRARY system of co-ordinates that meet his
criteria, and today we call it an "inertial frame"
-- I will do so below.]

[NOTE: In all cases, light is propagating in vacuum.
Einstein did not mention this in 1905, but corrected
the omission later. It is part of his context.]

Let me add this statement, which ought to be self-evident:
D) The speed of light is determined by the kind of laws
mentioned in (B).

Let me add this statement, which is part of the definition of
inertial frames:
E) Any two inertial frames are in uniform translatory motion
relative to each other.

Basic logic combines (A),(B),(C),(D),(E) to conclude [$]:
(F) Any ray of light moves in ANY inertial frame with the determined
velocity c, independent of the motion of its emitter relative to
that frame.
Note that Einstein's paper demonstrates this in section I.3.

My (F) refutes your claims, and illustrates your complete failure to
understand SR.

Yes, (F) was a SURPRISE in 1905, and is inconsistent with Newtonian
mechanics and Galilean relativity. Today, everyone who understands SR
knows it to be true (a simple consequence of Lorentz invariance).

Sadly, that does not include Ed Lake. The key thing he misses is the
implication of Einstein's first postulate (my (B) above) -- the laws of
physics are THE SAME IN EVERY INERTIAL FRAME. Since those laws determine
the propagation of light, light propagates THE SAME in every inertial
frame (i.e. with speed c).

[$] There is a simpler derivation of (F): since (A)
defines "stationary system" to be an arbitrary inertial
frame, (C) applies to any inertial frame, which is (F).

> Light from a source always travels at c, but it will hit a MOVING
> OBSERVER at c+v or c-v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward
> or away from the light source.

This is YOUR PERSONAL FANTASY. It is not SR. It is WRONG.

If that "moving observer" is at rest in an inertial frame, (F) says that
the light will travel with speed c relative to that frame, and that is
the speed with which it will "hit" the observer.

> [his claim of c+v or c-v] is demonstrated by radar guns every day.

More of your FANTASY. This is not at all "demonstrated by radar guns" --
they demonstrate no such thing because they simply do not measure the
speed of their beam hitting an object -- YOU JUST MADE THAT UP. You do
not know enough about SR to make up correct statements.

> Can anyone name an experiment where light from an emitter hits a
> MOVING OBSERVER at c?

The annual Doppler effect, in the context of SR.

Tom Roberts

[Odd Bodkin]

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 21:08:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
>> on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
>> though not lost on actual mathematicians.
>
> So, ask any mathematician, poor idiot. Or read some books
> you like so much. An axiom is always hold, by definition.

Well, let’s see. There’s the 5th Euclid axiom, and there is the alternate
axiom by Riemann. They are both mathematicians, and their statements are
both listed as axiomatic. So unless their definition of “axiom” is
different than yours, or you can produce a disclaimer by one mathematician
or the other that their version is not really an axiom and should not be
expected to “always hold”, I’d say you’ve got a problem.

>
> Stick to your wood, information is too complicated
> for you.
>

[Odd Bodkin]

You could always declare yourself a member of the United Euclidean Church,
and announce that anyone claiming to be a mathematician but using axioms
different than Euclid’s is a heretic and a false prophet and in any case
not a real mathematician. So sayeth the Polish Pharisee.

[Michael Moroney]

On 4/21/2021 5:34 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/21/21 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate: [...]
>
> You are mistaken. None of the 5 you quote are complete.
>
> One must wonder why you omitted Einstein's original second postulate:
>    2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
>       co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
>       the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

I don't know how closely you have been following this thread, but Ed's
kooky claim is that is *not* the second postulate!

> C) 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-
>   ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be
>   emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. [I.2]
>
>     [Note that my (B) and (C) are Einstein's statements of
>      his two postulates; my (A) is his definition of
>      "stationary system", which is just a label (i.e. it
>      has no meaning, as his final sentence says).]

Again, good luck convincing Ed of that.

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Apr-21 1:28 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> But, in general,
> if an emitter is moving relative to the source of a light, the observer will
> encounter that light as traveling at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the
> observer. Countless experiments have confirmed this.

You misspoke. Countless thought experiments have confirmed this.

Sylvia.

[Paparios]

Please watch this video from professor Greene at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFV2feKDK9E
Particularly the part at minute 25.

[Tom Roberts]

Almost, but not quite.

Countless thought experiments have confirmed this, but none of them are
based on SR.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/21/21 9:26 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2021 5:34 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 4/21/21 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate: [...]
>>
>> You are mistaken. None of the 5 you quote are complete.
>>
>> One must wonder why you omitted Einstein's original second postulate:
>>     2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
>>        co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
>>        the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
>
> I don't know how closely you have been following this thread, but Ed's
> kooky claim is that is *not* the second postulate!

I am unable to follow long threads.

I do know Ed Lake is unable to read Einstein's 1905 paper and fantasizes
that its introduction is the whole thing. So he hallucinates that the
second postulate is "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 mentally blocks out the word "always", probably
because he unconsciously realizes it destroys his entire approach.

Like long threads, I cannot deal with mental abnormalities like that.

Tom Roberts

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 23:41:01 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 21:08:47 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> And the dependency on axioms which may or may not hold is apparently lost
> >> on certain religious zealots from the “information engineering” world,
> >> though not lost on actual mathematicians.
> >
> > So, ask any mathematician, poor idiot. Or read some books
> > you like so much. An axiom is always hold, by definition.
> Well, let’s see.

Don't "see". You're an idiot, what you "see" doesn't
matter. Ask anyone competent instead, poor halfbrain.
Read books...

> both listed as axiomatic. So unless their definition of “axiom” is
> different than yours, or you can produce a disclaimer by one mathematician
> or the other that their version is not really an axiom

When it is an axiom - it holds. When it is not - it doesn't.
The same thing as with definitions (which can be easily
considered as a special case of axioms). And, anyway,
this "force of a mathematical theorem" you admire
came from the fact that axioms were carefully chosen
and never changed. Since some fools started to play
with them - that "force" doesn't really exist anymore.

Stick to your wood, Bod, information is too complicated
for you. Simply.

[Ken Seto]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 12:28:47 PM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 9:45:52 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
> > El martes, 20 de abril de 2021 a las 10:00:24 UTC-4, Ed Lake escribió:
> > > On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:47:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > > > > Einstein's Second Postulate on page 1 says NOTHING about any
> > > > > "'stationary' system of coordinates." It says, "light is always propagated

> > > > > in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
> > > > > state of motion of the emitting body."

> > > > That is because Einstein had to DEFINE the "'stationary' system of
> > > > coordinates" first. That is what he does in the section between the
> > > > introduction of the two postulates on Page 1 and the more rigorous
> > > > definition of the two postulates in terms of the "'stationary' system of
> > > > coordinates" on Page 4, now that that has been defined.
> > > Yes. There is NOTHING in our known universe that is "stationary."
> > > So, he had to define "stationary" as "not moving relative to something else."
> > > He did that to explain aspects of RELATIVITY, i.e., how something can
> > > be moving or stationary, depending upon how you view it.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless, the two mentions of the second postulate state the exact
> > > > same thing. Light always propagates at c regardless of whether it was
> > > > emitted by a stationary or moving source. And he specifically NEVER
> > > > states light propagates at c relative to the source (other than stating
> > > > it propagates at c relative to *any* inertial frame). Don't make up
> > > > garbage and then blame Einstein for it.
> > > So, all you can do here is argue over WORDS?
> > >
> > > Einstein's paper says that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of
> > > the emitter. It is always c, but c varies when the emitter is moving,
> > > because motion changes the length of a second, and c is the speed
> > > of light PER SECOND.
> > >
> > That is totally absurd, since Einstein established the time dilation results based on the premise that the speed of light is constant independently of the state of motion of the emitter.
> He was referring to "emission theory," where the speed of light is added
> to the speed of the emitter. "Emission theory" was the predominant
> theory before Einstein published his paper on Special Relativity in 1905.
>
> The speed of light is NOT constant. It APPEARS constant. Every EMITTER
> emits light at c. But c is the speed of light PER SECOND. And if the length
> of a second varies, then c varies.
> > > So, any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that the speed
> > > of light is "constant" is FALSE.
> > >
> > So you are saying that Einstein when writing the "principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" was not expressing that the speed of light is constant?
> Right. He was NOT saying the speed of light is constant. He was
> writing about how the speed of light APPEARS constant. That is what
> RELATIVITY is all about: how things can appear one way in one frame
> of reference and different in another frame of reference.
> > > Any claim that Einstein's Second Postulate says that all OBSERVERS
> > > will observe the speed of light to be c is TOTAL NONSENSE.
> > >
> > Einstein built his model by starting from his two postulates, which in his 1905 paper are called principles:
> >
> > "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
> > The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two principles we define
> > as follows:

> > 1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

> > 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
> > moving body".
> >

> > These two principles are indeed used to (as the title says) derive the relativity of lengths and times. In section 4 (page 9) he derives the equations related to the length contraction (R√(1-v²/c²)) and time dilation (T/√(1-v²/c²)). If the speed of light is not constant these equations are not valid.
> Einstein developed his theory starting from two POSTULATES, which
> in is 1905 paper are called "POSTULATES." They are:
>
> 1. the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all
> frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
> 2. light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c

> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Einstein formulated these two postulates by assuming the observer is in a state of rest in the stationary aether. That’s why he ended up the math of LET for SR.

> Later in his paper he describes various "principles" as he explains
> various aspects of his theory. In the Section titled "On the RELATIVITY
> of Lengths and Times" he is discussing RELATIVITY and how two
> beams of light can APPEAR to be moving at the same speed when
> they are actually moving at different speeds. He states a PRINCIPLE
> that applies to the situation:

> "2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with
> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a
> moving body."

> This is the situation he explained in detail when he later wrote about how a beam
> of light emitted from the sun at c can also APPEAR to pass an object at c if
> that object was ejected from the sun at 1,000 kps. The ejected object is
> a "stationary system of coordinates" (it is also an INERTIAL system) and the
> light from the sun will APPEAR to pass by at c whether the sun is moving or
> stationary. Furthermore, if the emitted object emits a ray of light, that light
> will ALSO APPEAR to move at c even though the emitted object is MOVING
> relative to the sun.
>
> That whole section of his paper is summarized in the final paragraph:
>
> "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of
> simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates,
> are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when
> envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system."
>
> In other words, if there was an observer moving alongside the ejected object,
> it would see the light from the sun and light from the ejected object do NOT
> move at the same speed. Light from the sun moves faster.
>
> Ed

[Ken Seto]

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 5:34:26 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/21/21 10:04 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > Here are 5 CORRECT versions of Einstein's Second Postulate: [...]
>
> You are mistaken. None of the 5 you quote are complete.
>
> One must wonder why you omitted Einstein's original second postulate:
> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
> co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
> the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

This is true only if he referred to the transition of light in an stationary ether.

.
> Remembering that his “stationary” system of co-ordinates is an arbitrary
> inertial frame, this is clearly a better statement than any of the ones

His stationary system is a system in the stationary aether. ......that’s why SR and LET have the same math. Once the emitter emits a light pulse into the ether the speed of transmission of of light is constant..... No secret there.

> you quoted, because it is not only correct, it is COMPLETE. (Of course
> "completeness" is measured relative to this.)

> > And here are 5 INCORRECT versions of Eind LET have the same math.stein’s Second Postulate

[Rob Acraman]

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 1:28:43 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
>
> Here's the link to the paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/2104.0104v1.pdf
>
> The paper shows where the nonsensical idea that "Light propagates

> through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed

> of the source OR OBSERVER" comes from. It's a screwball misinterpretation
> of a hypothetical situation where a moving observer DOES see the speed
> of light as being the same as what the emitter emitted. But, in general,

> if an emitter is moving relative to the source of a light, the observer will
> encounter that light as traveling at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the
> observer. Countless experiments have confirmed this.
>

> I'm looking for comments about my new paper. If you hate it, I hope
> you will explain why.
>
> Ed

OK, let's look at the paper.

We can start with :
"There seems to be no significant dispute over the First Postulate, but there have been over a hundred years of arguments over what his Second Postulate was. "

Not quite. The current mainstream understanding of both the postulates has always been well understood by every professional physicist - no argument about that. About the only physicist I can think of who ever disagreed was Dingle, who did initially advocate a non-reciprocal time dilation position for a while, but eventually admitted he had been wrong about that.

In other words, there has never been any arguments about the mainstream understanding of either of the postulates, and that understanding has always been diametrically opposed to your OPINION of BOTH.

Mainstream understanding of the first postulate is that no IFoR (Inertial Frame of Reference) is in any way "special" from any other IFO - they are all indistinguishable from eachother (pretty much the same way that any line of longitude is in no way special compared to any other).

You totally reject that. Whereas Einstein made the point that he was eschewing the "special" frame of the static Luminiferous aether, and the "special" frame of Newton's absolute frame, you have decided to introduce the "special" frame of "stationary relative to the speed of light".

Einstein's second postulate : " light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.", you have decided to interpret as " light is propagated in empty space with a varying velocities, which are dependent on the state of motion of the emitting body, since the faster the emitter relative to the speed of light, then the longer the emitter's SECOND due to time dilation, and therefore the slower the speed of that emitter's light "

So implicit in your interpretation is that there is some frame "stationary relative to the speed of light" - some frame that has ZERO time dilation, and against which all other frame's time dilation can be measured.

so, as mentioned, diametrically opposed to mainstream understanding of Einstein's postulates - both of them.

However, you NEVER address how we can ever identify that "special" frame.
So Question 1 : How do you identify that special frame that is stationary relative to the speed of light ?

One thought could be that we could shine a light, measure how fast it travels over 1 kilometre, and if it takes exactly 1/299,792.458 seconds, then we are "stationary relative to the speed of light".

Sounds good, but you reject that as well.

So let's take a specific example. Let's say Alice and Bob are in rocket ships coasting past eachother. Let's say one took off from the USA, the other from Russia (so opposite sides of the earth). Both travel away from eachother for a while, then in a single burst of acceleration they turn around - resulting in coasting "unpropelled" past eacher.

How do you determine which is stationary "relative to the speed of light".

That then brings us to Question 2 - How do you resolve the contradictions in your statements in the other thread - specifically (correcting for typos, and actual value of c) :

On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 1:39:24 AM UTC+10, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I would write things this way:
>
> Statement 1: LIGHT-1 from the sun travels at 299,792.458 kilometers per second, as the second (and metre) is measured on the SUN.
>
> Statement 2: LIGHT-2 emitted from the ship travels at 299,792.458 kilometers per second, as the second (and metre) is measured on the SHIP.
>
> Statement 3: HOWEVER, since the ship is moving at 1,000 kps relative to (and faster than) the sun, a second is LONGER on the SHIP.
>
> Statement 4: Although both the sun and the ship emit photons that travel at c, the value of c is NOT THE SAME because the length of a second is longer on the ship than on the sun.
>
> Statement 4: BECAUSE a second is longer on the ship, an observer on the SHIP will see LIGHT-1 pass at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship, NOT at 300,792.458 kilometers per second.
>
> Statement 5: This means that Light-1 actually travels faster than Light-2. An observer receiving the two lights would see Light-2 as RED shifted.
>
> Statement 6: The photons from the two sources will NOT travel side by side. The photons from the sun travel faster than the photons from the ship.
>

In statements 2 and 4, YOU are stating that BOTH Light-1 and Light-2 are travelling at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship.
This means we can forget anything about a second on the ship being longer that a second on the sun - your statements 2 and 4 you are stating THE SAME SPPED using the SAME seconds (as seconds are measured on the ship)

So you then declare that, since both Light-1 and Light-2 "pass at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship", then "This means that Light-1 actually travels faster than Light-2"

No, it doesn't. Of course it doesn't.

Light-1 and Light-2 both passing "at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship" means that both Light-1 and Light-2 are travelling at the SAME speed.

Question 2: Why do you think that two lights, both travelling "at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship" means that one is travelling faster than the other ?

This leads to yet another contradiction :

You want to claim that both :
a) Light will always be measured by the emitter to be travelling at 299,792.458 kilometers per second (as seconds are measured by the emitter), AND
b) Light from a "moving" emitter will travel slower than light emitted by a "stationary" emitter (since the "moving" emitter has time dilation).

Trouble is : (a) and (b) are contradictory.

Let's take what you say from your document :

"In other words, the ray of light from the sun travels at 300,000 kilometers per second as seconds are measured on the sun, and that same ray of light passes by the projected body at 300,000 kilometers per second as seconds are measured on the projected body.

In addition, if the observer on the ejected body were to emit light, that light would travel at 300,000 kilometers per second as seconds are measured on the ejected body."

Einstein had the ejected body travelling at a measly 1000kps - let's increase that to 0.9999c ( or 299,750kps). According to your favourite calculator at https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 , that leads to a time dilation (and therefore slowing of emitted light) of 99.98%.

In other words, the extreme speed of the emitter results in the extreme slowing of the emitted light - so basically the emitted light is (pretty much) "stationary".

Bet here's the thing - if the emitted light is slowed as you claim, then it simply CANNOT be travelling forward "at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship" .

On the contrary, if the emitted light is slowed down to that extent due to the time dilation of the emitter, then the emitter will race straight past it.
The passenger on the ship (or ejected object) will not measure his emitted light going forward "at 299,792.458 kilometers per second as a second is measured on the ship" , but will see that (pretty much) stationary light being left behind.

(a) and (b) are contradictory.


In contrast, the mainstream understanding of the postulates, has NONE of these contradictions.


PS. Please let's keep this thread SOLELY to Ed's views. Ed does not accept the Aether, so anything like that is OFF-TOPIC, so such posts should simply be ignored - please do NOT start a discussion in THIS thread on that; there are plenty of other threads.

[Byron Laramee]

Ken Seto wrote:

>> One must wonder why you omitted Einstein's original second postulate:
>> 2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates
>> with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
>> stationary or by a moving body.
>
> This is true only if he referred to the transition of light in an
> stationary ether.

you don't even know what _stationary_ stands for, you degenerated thief.
Stationary wrt what, idiot. Stationary implies _movable_. Take it an move
it, then. And stop stealing theories.

[Odd Bodkin]

You complain that people worship Einstein (even when they don’t) but you’d
rather they worship Euclid and Aristotle as you do. How cute.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Seto, you’re 85 years old and living in a nursing home, you’ve never read
any physics texts, you can’t do grade school math, and you don’t know what
you’re talking about. Give it up already.

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

[Maciej Wozniak]

You complain that I worship Euclid and Aristotle (even when I don’t)
but you’d rather I worship your idiot guru as you do. How cute.

Still, an axiom is always true, by definition. And, samely as
with definition, it's "axiom" mark making it true. As long
as it has the mark it holds.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 14:49:24 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Seto, you’re 85 years old and living in a nursing home, you’ve never read
> any physics texts, you can’t do grade school math

Speaking of schol grade math, it's always good to remind that your
bunch of idiots had to announce it false, as it didn't want to fit
your idiocies.

[Odd Bodkin]

LOL. I wonder if anyone else agrees with you. And if they don’t, then they
just don’t know, because “information is too complicated” for them.

> Stick to your wood, Bod, information is too complicated
> for you. Simply.
>

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

[Ken Seto]

So your argument is the I am 85 years old? Gee you are so fucking stupid.
If you are not so indoctrinated, you would know that that’s the only way that Einstein’s constant light speed postulate is true: that the speed of light is constant c in a vacuum independent of the state of motion of the emitter.

[Odd Bodkin]

An 85-year-old in a nursing home with no skills in math and physics doesn’t
warrant an argument.

Why do you think someone as wholly incompetent in this subject as you are
would be worth an argument?

[Maciej Wozniak]

If you had some basic mathematical knowledge you wouldn't.

[Odd Bodkin]

Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Still, an axiom is always true, by definition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

If only you knew what you were talking about.

> And, samely as
> with definition, it's "axiom" mark making it true. As long
> as it has the mark it holds.
> Stick to your wood, Bod, information is too complicated
> for you. Simply.
>

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 15:42:56 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Still, an axiom is always true, by definition.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

Sure, poor halfbrain.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, "
QED.

[Paparios]

One additional consideration:

The second postulate says the speed of light is a constant value c. If the moving observer is moving at speed v you assert that the light will hit him at c+v or c-v.

You are using what it is call a composition of speeds. However, Einstein in his paper (see section 5 at page 12) derived the relativistic composition of speeds:

For two objects moving at speeds v and w, the composition speed V is obtained with the following formula:

V = (v + w)/(1 + vw/c²)

If the second object is a photon of light, moving at speed c, then that light will hit the observer moving at speed v at a speed V given by:

V = (v + c)/(1 + vc/c²) = (v + c)/(1 + v/c) = (v + c)/((c + v)/c) = c

Therefore your "LIGHT HITS THE MOVING OBSERVER AT c+v or c-v NOT at c! " is completely wrong as Einstein formula proves!!!