A List of 8 Variable Speed of Light Experiments

[Ed Lake]

FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 7:22:12 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>

The cretin is back.

[Ned Latham]

For testing the idea of VSL, try direct measurement of the speeds of light
coming from:
a. a red-shifted source, such as quasar 3C 273;
b. an un-shifted source, such as the sun; and
c. a blue-shifted source, such as the Andromeda galaxy.

[Ed Lake]

The 8 experiments aren't MY experiments, they are experiments done by others.

The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects
is #2 on the list: Measure the pulses of objects that send out regular
pulses of energy, like pulsars. The pulses will arrive faster when the
Earth moves toward the Pulsar, and the pulses will arrive slower when the
Earth is moving away from the Pulsar. That means the light is arriving
at c+v when the Earth is moving toward the pulsar, and the light is arriving
at c-v when the Earth is moving away from the pulsar.

I'm working on a new paper about #6 on the list. That paper will be about
the first experiments I have done personally.

Ed

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.

You are just fantasizing that what you think "ought to be true" is
supported by these experiments.

In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.

Remember that in SR, light in vacuum travels with speed
c relative to ANY inertial frame, not "c-v" or "c+v".
This is QUITE DIFFERENT from your fantasies and claims.

> The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects
> is #2 on the list: Measure the pulses of objects that send out regular
> pulses of energy, like pulsars.

You need to learn what the words you read and use ACTUALLY mean. That is
NOT any sort of measurement of the SPEED of light. It is, after all, a
measurement of the ARRIVAL RATE of pulses from the pulsar, NOTHING MORE.
This measures DOPPLER SHIFT, not the speed of light. Concluding "c+v"
and "c-v" are YOUR FANTASIES, not any type of actual measurement.

More complete measurements and analysis show that both the
wavelength and the frequency of light/microwaves from such
distant sources are affected by earth's velocity, but the
product wavelength*frequency is not affected -- that is, of
course, the phase velocity of the light wave relative to
the inertial frame of the earth during the measurement.
That phase speed being constant (and equal to c) is of
course what SR predicts.

Tom Roberts

[kenseto]

The incoming speed of light is variable as follows:
1. Consider the source is sodium and the source wavelength of sodium is 589 nm.
2. Measure the incoming frequency call this as Fi.
3. The incoming speed of incoming sodium light: c’=(measured incoming frequency Fi)(source wavelength of sodium 589 nm)

[rotchm]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:14:46 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 7:40:34 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

<idiot ken's stupidity snipped>

Idiot ken, I now forbid you to converse with Tom, unless he specifically requests it.

If we havent invited you, DON'T BOTHER US. Learn a little respect!

[Sylvia Else]

Usual stuff where Ed misunderstands what he's read.

I can't even see why Ed would think that Rømer's work supported his
contention.

Sylvia.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 8:08:20 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

> The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects
> is #2 on the list: Measure the pulses of objects that send out regular
> pulses of energy, like pulsars. The pulses will arrive faster when the
> Earth moves toward the Pulsar, and the pulses will arrive slower when the
> Earth is moving away from the Pulsar. That means the light is arriving
> at c+v when the Earth is moving toward the pulsar, and the light is arriving
> at c-v when the Earth is moving away from the pulsar.

No, Ed, that experiment shows that the *frequency* is higher when the Earth moves towards the pulsar and lower when moving away from the pulsar and *not* the speed of light. The pulses don't arrive faster or slower, just closer together or farther apart, but always at "c". Nowhere in that article do they claim otherwise, you just can't interpret correctly.

Again, you just don't know what you don't know, and it is pretty obvious to almost everyone else here, with the usual notable exceptions.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 02-nov.-2019 om 03:16 schreef rotchm:

Lack of respect *for* anyone, and total immunity to not
getting any respect *from* anyone, is the only way to be
an idiot and stay here during more than two decades.

Dirk Vdm

[Cmdr Ed Straker]

Hi Ed,
Can you clarify this, also referring back to the "Radar Gun vs Wave Theory".

So from above, you believe :

> the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

You emphasised this in the other thread's discussions, like October 6th :
-- start Einstein quote --
Einstein : Once more, the example of the moving room with
outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light
signal is emitted from the centre of the room
….
The inside observer: The light signal travelling from
the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously,
since all the walls are equally distant from the
light source and the velocity of light is the same in all
directions.
-- end Einstein Quote --

> In other words, light hits the back wall at c+v and the front wall at c-v.
The person in the room doesn't see it because light returning to his
eyes will negate the difference.

> The guy on the train sees an illusion because the light he turned on
hit the front wall at c-v

So in summary, as you stated repeatedly though that thread, you believe :

*** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed c + v or c - v


IN ADDITION,
From your page that you linked to above, you also believe (EMPHASIS mine):

> light will be observed by a moving observer to arrive at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from THE EMITTER

( http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html )

Again, you emphasised this in that other thread on October 10 :

> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.

So in summary, you must believe :

*** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed exactly c, since the velocity between the wall and the emitter is 0


It is worth restating that your statement above - let's repeat it here so there's no mistake :

> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.

This is the very definition of "Emission Theory" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory ) - basically the idea that the speed of light measured by an observer is determined by the relative velocity (or, if you prefer, the collective motion of emitter and receiver )

I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
> The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"

The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory. The result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the emitter and receiver.

[Jose Gonzalez]

kenseto wrote:

>> More complete measurements and analysis show that both the wavelength
>> and the frequency of light/microwaves from such distant sources are
>> affected by earth's velocity, but the product wavelength*frequency is
>> not affected -- that is, of course, the phase velocity of the light
>> wave relative to the inertial frame of the earth during the
>> measurement. That phase speed being constant (and equal to c) is of
>> course what SR predicts. Tom Roberts
>
> The incoming speed of light is variable as follows:
> 1. Consider the source is sodium and the source wavelength of sodium is
> 589 nm.
> 2. Measure the incoming frequency call this as Fi.
> 3. The incoming speed of incoming sodium light: c’=(measured incoming
> frequency Fi)(source wavelength of sodium 589 nm)

I hate _BaTH_, I hate _Model Mechanics_, but I hate _relativity_ even
more.

[Jose Gonzalez]

But of course, I hate

_Causality Between Events with Space-Like Separation_ even more.

[Jose Gonzalez]

If you can't see, you two guys, go read or reread recently _CBESLS_.

(_Causality Between Events with Space-Like Separation_)

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
> > which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
> > observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
> > RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.

The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light. The
speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.
The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
OF LIGHT. The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.

>
> You are just fantasizing that what you think "ought to be true" is
> supported by these experiments.
>
> In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.
>
> Remember that in SR, light in vacuum travels with speed
> c relative to ANY inertial frame, not "c-v" or "c+v".
> This is QUITE DIFFERENT from your fantasies and claims.

NONSENSE!!! Einstein's 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."

It says NOTHING about what an outside observer will measure. In the
8 experiments, the observer measures his v relative to the emitted c.

>
> > The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects
> > is #2 on the list: Measure the pulses of objects that send out regular
> > pulses of energy, like pulsars.
>
> You need to learn what the words you read and use ACTUALLY mean. That is
> NOT any sort of measurement of the SPEED of light. It is, after all, a
> measurement of the ARRIVAL RATE of pulses from the pulsar, NOTHING MORE.
> This measures DOPPLER SHIFT, not the speed of light. Concluding "c+v"
> and "c-v" are YOUR FANTASIES, not any type of actual measurement.

Correct. My mistake. The experiment does not measure the speed of light,
it assumes c is 299,792,458 meters per second. The experiment measures
the velocity of the Earth (v) relative to the speed of light (c).

>
> More complete measurements and analysis show that both the
> wavelength and the frequency of light/microwaves from such
> distant sources are affected by earth's velocity, but the
> product wavelength*frequency is not affected -- that is, of
> course, the phase velocity of the light wave relative to
> the inertial frame of the earth during the measurement.
> That phase speed being constant (and equal to c) is of
> course what SR predicts.

Nonsense. Light from distant stars is "blue shifted" or "red shifted"
depending upon the EARTH'S motion relative to those stars. Since the
Earth is moving in the direction of Andromeda, light from Andromeda is
"blue shifted." Light from very distant galaxies is "red shifted"
because the Earth is moving away from those galaxies as the universe
expands.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Rømer's work shows that, when the earth is moving toward Jupiter, the
elapsed time between eclipses was shorter than when the earth was moving
away from Jupiter. The speed of light is constant, so the difference
MUST be due to the velocity of the earth toward or away from Jupiter.

When the earth is moving TOWARD Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of
Jupiter and Io arrives on earth at c+v. When the earth is moving AWAY
from Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of Jupiter and IO arrives on
earth at c-v. In both cases, v is the speed of the earth toward Jupiter.

If the speed of light was c for both the emitter and the observer,
there would be no difference in the measured times of the eclipses.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Okay, I should have spent more time writing that comment. The speed of light
is not measured, THE SPEED OF THE EARTH RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT is
measured. Light is ASSUMED to travel at c. However, it arrives on earth
at c+v or c-v depending upon the velocity of the earth (v) toward or away
from the pulsar.

Ed

[Dono,]

You are going to repeat the same exact imbecility until you die. You will never learn.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> is not measured, THE SPEED OF THE EARTH RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> LIGHT is measured.

Hello sir. I'm a new poster here. I hope that you will respond in a
civil & honest manner as I am doing for you. (There are many cranks
in this NG, so I hope you are not one of them).

In physics, "speed" is *defined* via a specified reference frame/ coordinate system (typically, operationally defined). That is, speeds are relative to a given CS. So when you talk about speeds, to avoid any confusions, can you specify the CS?

So when you say 'the speed of the earth', you are referring to which CS?
This would clear a lot of confusions from your readers.

[Dono,]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 7:46:18 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> > On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
> > > which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
> > > observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
> > > RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
> >
> > Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.
>
> The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light. The
> speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.
> The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
> OF LIGHT. The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.
>

Can't fix the Ed Lake imbecile

[Michael Moroney]

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

>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> > FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
>> > which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
>> > observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
>> > RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>
>> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.

>The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light. The
>speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.

What local second? The second has a specific definition. Look it up.

>The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
>OF LIGHT.

Once again, that is nonsense. Speed is measured relative to a frame,
or an object stationary in that frame. Trying to measure "relative to
the speed of light" would always produce a nonsense answer of -c, since
the speed of light is c in all inertial frames.

>> You are just fantasizing that what you think "ought to be true" is
>> supported by these experiments.
>>
>> In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.
>>
>> Remember that in SR, light in vacuum travels with speed
>> c relative to ANY inertial frame, not "c-v" or "c+v".
>> This is QUITE DIFFERENT from your fantasies and claims.

>NONSENSE!!! Einstein's 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."

Exactly. That means the observer ALWAYS measures the speed of light as c. Also
note that Einstein did NOT write "light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c relative to the emitting body independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body."

THAT is what needed for your beliefs to be true. Light always being measured
as c was already known during Einstein's time, which is why he used constant
speed of light as a postulate.

>It says NOTHING about what an outside observer will measure.

It most certainly does! It explicitly states what the obserever in what he
called the "stationary" frame (remember, that is a name) observes. Light
measured with a speed c. Don't try to twist Einstein's words, it doesn't work.

>> > The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects
>> > is #2 on the list: Measure the pulses of objects that send out regular
>> > pulses of energy, like pulsars.
>>
>> You need to learn what the words you read and use ACTUALLY mean. That is
>> NOT any sort of measurement of the SPEED of light. It is, after all, a
>> measurement of the ARRIVAL RATE of pulses from the pulsar, NOTHING MORE.
>> This measures DOPPLER SHIFT, not the speed of light. Concluding "c+v"
>> and "c-v" are YOUR FANTASIES, not any type of actual measurement.

>Correct. My mistake. The experiment does not measure the speed of light,
>it assumes c is 299,792,458 meters per second. The experiment measures
>the velocity of the Earth (v) relative to the speed of light (c).

Again, nonsense.

>> More complete measurements and analysis show that both the
>> wavelength and the frequency of light/microwaves from such
>> distant sources are affected by earth's velocity, but the
>> product wavelength*frequency is not affected -- that is, of
>> course, the phase velocity of the light wave relative to
>> the inertial frame of the earth during the measurement.
>> That phase speed being constant (and equal to c) is of
>> course what SR predicts.

>Nonsense. Light from distant stars is "blue shifted" or "red shifted"
>depending upon the EARTH'S motion relative to those stars. Since the
>Earth is moving in the direction of Andromeda, light from Andromeda is
>"blue shifted."

Why is Earth moving to Andromeda and not Andromeda moving toward Earth?

What happens if there is another blue0shifted galaxy almost directly
opposite of Andromeda? Is earth moving toward it as well?

> Light from very distant galaxies is "red shifted"
>because the Earth is moving away from those galaxies as the universe
>expands.

So earth is moving directly away from distant galaxies in one direction and
moving away from distant galaxies in the direct opposite direction? Explain
that!

[rotchm]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:46:18 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
> OF LIGHT.

No they do not. In all those texts, all speeds are relative to a specified CS. Light or the speed of light is not a CS.

> The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.

I little typo in the last one there. It should read ... = -v.

> Einstein's 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."

Read the above sentence carefully. That sentence means that the the
velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the *receiver*.

> It says NOTHING about what an outside observer will measure.

Yes it does. Read the above quote carefully again.

[Ed Lake]

Okay, I see where you are getting confused. I probably should have written
that v is the speed of the receiver toward or away from THE POINT OF EMISSION.

When a moving emitter emits light toward a moving observer that is moving
at the same speed and in the same direction as the emitter, the distance
between the emitter and receiver does not change. HOWEVER, WHILE the light
is traveling from the emitter to the receiver, THE RECEIVER IS MOVING AT v
RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So, the light will hit the receiver at
c+v or c-v just as if the emitter was stationary and only the receiver was
moving.

>
>
> It is worth restating that your statement above - let's repeat it here so there's no mistake :
>
> > I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>
> This is the very definition of "Emission Theory" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory ) - basically the idea that the speed of light measured by an observer is determined by the relative velocity (or, if you prefer, the collective motion of emitter and receiver )

NO. "Emission Theory" is ONLY about the speed of the EMITTER adding to the
speed of light that is emitted.

Einstein's Second Postulate 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 means that the speed of the EMITTER will NOT change the speed of
light that is emitted.

However, a moving observer WILL observe that light to arrive at c+v or
c-v where v is the speed of the observer. And that is even true when
the observer is moving at the same speed and in the same direction as
the emitter. The observer observes the light to arrive at c+v or c-v
which means the observer observes the light arriving at his speed

RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

>

> I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
> > The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"
>
> The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory. The result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the emitter and receiver.

"Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
encounter is at c+v or c-v.

Ed

[Dono,]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 8:31:46 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> THE RECEIVER IS MOVING AT v
> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So, the light will hit the receiver at
> c+v or c-v just as if the emitter was stationary and only the receiver was
> moving.

Repeating the same imbecilities for many years doesn't make them right, it only makes you a stubborn imbecile.

[Michael Moroney]

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

>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:56:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Usual stuff where Ed misunderstands what he's read.

>> I can't even see why Ed would think that Rømer's work supported his
>> contention.

>Rømer's work shows that, when the earth is moving toward Jupiter, the
>elapsed time between eclipses was shorter than when the earth was moving
>away from Jupiter. The speed of light is constant, so the difference
>MUST be due to the velocity of the earth toward or away from Jupiter.

WRONG. One of the times is when Jupiter was near opposition, when it was
closest and the change of distance was minimal. The other time was when it
was as distant as possible but still visible (nearing the time it would be
going behind the sun as seen from earth. Again the change of speed relative to
earth is minimal then. We know this because of the dates of measurement and
we can plot where Jupiter was then.

>When the earth is moving TOWARD Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of
>Jupiter and Io arrives on earth at c+v. When the earth is moving AWAY
>from Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of Jupiter and IO arrives on
>earth at c-v. In both cases, v is the speed of the earth toward Jupiter.

So again you are adding made-up facts (speed of Jupiter to/away from Earth)
and using the made-up "facts" to try to confirm your beliefs. FAIL.

>If the speed of light was c for both the emitter and the observer,
>there would be no difference in the measured times of the eclipses.

There certainly would be! The time for the light to reach us is different
because of the distance of the diameter of Earth's orbit. About 16 seconds.

[Ned Latham]

Ed Lake wrote:

----snip----

> Nonsense. Light from distant stars is "blue shifted" or "red shifted"
> depending upon the EARTH'S motion relative to those stars. Since the
> Earth is moving in the direction of Andromeda, light from Andromeda is
> "blue shifted." Light from very distant galaxies is "red shifted"
> because the Earth is moving away from those galaxies as the universe
> expands.

There is bo reasoin to postulate expansion of the universe.

[Ned Latham]

rotchm wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:

----snip----

> > Einstein's 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."
>
> Read the above sentence carefully. That sentence means that the the
> velocity of light is independent of the state of motion of the *receiver*.

Wrong. The emitting body is not the receiver.

> > It says NOTHING about what an outside observer will measure.
>
> Yes it does. Read the above quote carefully again.

Wrong again. Read it yourself.

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:22:12 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>
> Ed

Hmm. People who are on my "Do not reply list" are posting interesting
questions. I cannot "reply" to their specific comments without them
attacking me for lying about the list, but I can RESPOND in general to
what they wrote.

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is about measuring speeds
RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT instead of being relative to some imaginary
ether or (aether).

So, what is the "co-ordinate system" (CS) when you are using a radar gun to
measure the speed of a vehicle moving RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT? The
CS would be that of the person holding the radar gun, or it could be an
outside observer standing at the side of the road. Or it can be the target
vehicle.

When the CV is the gun, the gun is at LOCAL c, and target is moving at some velocity relative to LOCAL c, either c+v or c-v.

When the CV is some observer standing next to the road, the gun can be
stationary relative to him or moving relative to him, and the target vehicle
will be moving relative to him.

If the CV is the man in the target vehicle, if he considers himself to
be "stationary," HE IS AN IDIOT, because light from the radar gun will
reach him at c+v or c-v, which means that the speed of light changes
depending upon his direction of movement. ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE TO THE
LOCAL SPEED OF LIGHT. He is moving relative to the LOCAL speed of light.

I mention "local speed of light" because, as Einstein's Theories show,
the length of a second changes with changes in velocity and gravity.
It is not significantly different, but it can be measured. I have a
web page of Time Dilation Experiments here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

Einsteintard Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> writes:

>Hmm. People who are on my "Do not reply list" are posting interesting
>questions. I cannot "reply" to their specific comments without them
>attacking me for lying about the list, but I can RESPOND in general to
>what they wrote.

How to be a liar while trying to hide the lying.

>Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is about measuring speeds
>RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT instead of being relative to some imaginary
>ether or (aether).

No such thing as "RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT". That doesn't even make
sense. Einstein never mentioned that. Einstein always gave speeds relative to
reference frames, or "reference objects" (modern equivalent object stationary
in a reference frame) and discounted the ether.

"RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT" is just crap you pulled from your ass, has
nothing to do with physics.

>So, what is the "co-ordinate system" (CS) when you are using a radar gun to
>measure the speed of a vehicle moving RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT? The
>CS would be that of the person holding the radar gun, or it could be an
>outside observer standing at the side of the road. Or it can be the target
>vehicle.

Einstein would tell you the gun, but the speed of light is c in all inertial
frames regardless of motion as mentioned in his second postulate.

>When the CV is the gun, the gun is at LOCAL c, and target is moving at some
>velocity relative to LOCAL c, either c+v or c-v.

No such thing as "local c". Speed of light is c in all inertial reference
frames, including that of the target.

>When the CV is some observer standing next to the road, the gun can be
>stationary relative to him or moving relative to him, and the target vehicle
>will be moving relative to him.

>If the CV is the man in the target vehicle, if he considers himself to
>be "stationary," HE IS AN IDIOT,

No, you are the idiot, twisting Einstein's writings into knots.

> because light from the radar gun will
>reach him at c+v or c-v,

Violation of Second Postulate.

> which means that the speed of light changes

Violation of Second Postulate.

>depending upon his direction of movement. ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE TO THE
>LOCAL SPEED OF LIGHT. He is moving relative to the LOCAL speed of light.

Gibberish.

>I mention "local speed of light" because, as Einstein's Theories show,
>the length of a second changes with changes in velocity and gravity.

No, it doesn't.
A second is always the same.

>It is not significantly different, but it can be measured. I have a
>web page of Time Dilation Experiments here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Nonsense posted to the web is still nonsense.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/2/19 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
>>> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
>>> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
>>> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>
>> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.
>
> The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light.

FINALLY! You actually said something correct.

So why do you make claims about them like "the speed of light as
measured by a moving observer" ???? -- after all, THEY WERE NOT INTENDED
TO MEASURE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. And they didn't.

> The
> speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.

Only by idiots like you.

Physicists know it has been MEASURED. And we know how general that
measurement is (valid in every locally inertial frame).

> The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
> OF LIGHT.

NONSENSE. That simply is not possible. All speeds (velocities) are
measured relative to a set of coordinates or relative to a frame (which
is merely a special type of coordinates).

You REALLY need to learn what the words you use ACTUALLY mean. Your
GUESSES are wrong.

You seem to have confused yourself into thinking that when someone
expresses a speed v as
v = 0.9 c
that it is somehow a "measurement relative to the speed of light". That
is BLATANTLY not so, it is merely expressing one NUMBER (v) in terms of
two another NUMBERS (0.9 and c). Such a speed is, of course, relative to
some FRAME (here not specified).

> The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.

WOW! You cannot even do elementary algebra. There's no point in
continuing. (Ignoring your error, those "equations" are completely
irrelevant, anyway; they are just your personal fantasy.)

Tom Roberts

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:46:51 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/2/19 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
> >>> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
> >>> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
> >>> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
> >>
> >> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.
> >
> > The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light.
>
> FINALLY! You actually said something correct.
>
> So why do you make claims about them like "the speed of light as
> measured by a moving observer" ???? -- after all, THEY WERE NOT INTENDED
> TO MEASURE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. And they didn't.

The experiments were intended to demonstrate that light arrives at c+v for
an observer moving toward the source of the light, and at c-v for an
observer moving away from the source of the light. So, they were
MEASURING the difference between the ASSUMED speed of light and speed of
the RECEIVED light. They KNOW what the v speed is.

>
> > The
> > speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.
>
> Only by idiots like you.

No, that is ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN. Time dilation says that the length
of a second changes with your speed and your proximity to a gravitational
mass. That means that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL
second, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND will be different at a different
altitude or when the emitter is moving at a different speed. The speed
of light there will ALSO be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the length
of a second will be different. So the LOCAL speed of light is actually
different.

>
> Physicists know it has been MEASURED. And we know how general that
> measurement is (valid in every locally inertial frame).

Yes, in "every local inertial frame" the speed of light will be measured
to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND CAN BE
DIFFERENT. That means the LOCAL speed of light in each one of those
"local inertial frames" can also be different even though they are all
MEASURED to be 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND.

>
> > The experiments measure THE SPEED OF AN OBJECT RELATIVE TO THE SPEED
> > OF LIGHT.
>
> NONSENSE. That simply is not possible. All speeds (velocities) are
> measured relative to a set of coordinates or relative to a frame (which
> is merely a special type of coordinates).

NONSENSE!! You are just saying that you cannot comprehend measuring
a speed relative to the speed of light. You NEED some object or some
IMAGINARY ETHER to measure relative speeds. That is your problem.

If light is traveling at LOCAL c, any LOCAL movement can be considered
to be relative to the local speed of light.

>
> You REALLY need to learn what the words you use ACTUALLY mean. Your
> GUESSES are wrong.
>
> You seem to have confused yourself into thinking that when someone
> expresses a speed v as
> v = 0.9 c
> that it is somehow a "measurement relative to the speed of light". That
> is BLATANTLY not so, it is merely expressing one NUMBER (v) in terms of
> two another NUMBERS (0.9 and c). Such a speed is, of course, relative to
> some FRAME (here not specified).

Yes, I understand that you REQUIRE some "frame" that can be considered
to be "stationary," even if the idea is totally stupid. But there is
NOTHING to say you cannot measure your velocity to be relative to the
speed of light.

>

> > The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.
>
> WOW! You cannot even do elementary algebra. There's no point in
> continuing. (Ignoring your error, those "equations" are completely
> irrelevant, anyway; they are just your personal fantasy.)

If you cannot understand elementary algebra, I can provide actual
numbers: Light is ALWAYS emitted at 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.
If you encounter light arriving at 299,792,460 meters per second, you
can subtract the LOCAL speed of light (299,792,458 meters per second) from
the received speed of light, and that will give you YOUR speed of 2 meters
per second. It is as simple at that. I'm sorry if it is incomprehensible
to you.

Ed

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:10:08 PM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:

> The experiments were intended to demonstrate that light arrives at c+v for
> an observer moving toward the source of the light, and at c-v for an
> observer moving away from the source of the light.

There is no experiment ever performed that shows this to be true. You are just making this up for some reason, which is likely that you do not understand the first thing about relativity.

A lot of slightly different answers here...

https://www.quora.com/If-two-spacecraft-are-approaching-each-other-at-close-to-the-speed-of-light-does-it-appear-to-an-observer-on-each-spacecraft-that-the-other-is-traveling-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-relative-to-himself

... but this one might be best...

"If two spacecraft are approaching each other at close to the speed of light, does it appear to an observer on each spacecraft that the other is traveling faster than the speed of light relative to himself?

No. Not only can objects not travel faster than light, but it’s impossible for an object to appear to be traveling faster than light. If two spacecraft are approaching each other at close to the speed of light, does it appear to an observer on each spacecraft that the other is traveling faster than the speed of light relative to himself?

No. Not only can objects not travel faster than light, but it’s impossible for an object to appear to be traveling faster than light. No observer will ever see another object that appears to be traveling faster than light.

If two objects are directly approaching each other, one traveling at velocity v1, and the other at velocity v2, then their apparent closing velocity is:

v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + (v1*v2)/c^2)

If the velocities are measured in “c”, then the c^2 term becomes 1 and we can drop it, so we get:

v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2))

If they’re both traveling at 0.9c, then:

v = (0.9 + 0.9) / (1 + (0.9 * 0.9))

and we get:

v = 0.9944 c

So each spacecraft would see the other approaching at 0.9944 c.

If two objects are directly approaching each other, one traveling at velocity v1, and the other at velocity v2, then their apparent closing velocity is:

v = (v1 + v2)/(1 + (v1*v2)/c^2)

If the velocities are measured in “c”, then the c^2 term becomes 1 and we can drop it, so we get:

v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 * v2))

If they’re both traveling at 0.9c, then:

v = (0.9 + 0.9) / (1 + (0.9 * 0.9))

and we get:

v = 0.9944 c

So each spacecraft would see the other approaching at 0.9944 c."

Again... "... No observer will ever see another object that appears to be traveling faster than light."

As always, you don't know what you don't know, and that's a fact!

[Jose Gonzalez]

Tom Roberts wrote:

>> The equations are (c+v)-c = v. Or (c-v)-c = v.
>
> WOW! You cannot even do elementary algebra. There's no point in
> continuing. (Ignoring your error, those "equations" are completely
> irrelevant, anyway; they are just your personal fantasy.)

no. The v inthere is new light. When emitted photons are slow-now omni-
directional round curved backwards appearance.

[rotchm]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 10:46:18 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:

> NONSENSE!!! Einstein's Second Postulate is "light is always propagated

> in empty space with a definite velocity c...

>
> It says NOTHING about what an outside observer will measure.

Yes it does. Reread the above quote. It *means* that any *observer* will
measure the sol to be c. That's what the above sentence MEANS. Do you agree with that?

[rotchm]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 5:10:08 PM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:


> NONSENSE!! You are just saying that you cannot comprehend measuring
> a speed relative to the speed of light.

'Speed' is DEFINED via a CS. Do you agree to this?

> Yes, I understand that you REQUIRE some "frame" that can be considered
> to be "stationary," even if the idea is totally stupid.

Are you saying that the idea that your nose always remains on your face is "stupid"? Your face is the CS and your nose always remains at the same position on it; its position always remains "x=0". You disagree with that??

> But there is NOTHING to say you cannot measure your velocity
> to be relative to the speed of light.

Yes there is, the DEFINITION of speed. The definition *requires* you to specify the CS. Agree to this?



> ... (c-v)-c = v.

>
> If you cannot understand elementary algebra,

Except for you, I think that we all agree that your above algebra is WRONG.
For instance, let c=2 & v=1. What does the LHS give? Then what does the RHS give? Are they equal?

[kenseto]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 10:16:30 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:14:46 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 7:40:34 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> <idiot ken's stupidity snipped>
>
> Idiot ken, I now forbid you to converse with Tom, unless he specifically requests it.
>
> If we havent invited you, DON'T BOTHER US. Learn a little respect!

Moron, you don’t get to dictate who I respond.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 8:42:55 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:

> > If we havent invited you, DON'T BOTHER US. Learn a little respect!
>
> Moron, you don’t get to dictate who I respond.

Yes I do. If you keep it up, I will lockdown your computer & block you from posting on these groups. You have been warned.

[Ed Lake]

On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:22:12 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>

> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>
> Ed

I just bought a radar gun similar to the Bushnell Velocity. It CONFIRMS
some of what I wrote in my papers about "Radar Guns and Einstein's Theories"
and "Radar Guns vs Wave Theory." Indirectly, it confirms everything.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v6.pdf
http://vixra.org/pdf/1909.0609v1.pdf

I've done experiments with the gun, and I'll be writing a paper about
those experiments. I'll be back when I've finished the paper.

Bye bye.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

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

>On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:22:12 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:
>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>
>> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>>
>> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>>
>> Ed

>I just bought a radar gun similar to the Bushnell Velocity.

What a coincidence. I bought the Velocity myself a little while ago, just
before the last time you ran away.

I have done a few experiments myself.

I was going to wait until I made a Youtube video but I thought it may be all
for naught since you disappeared. But a quick summary so far:

The Velocity records the highest speed seen while the trigger is held down.

When used as intended, stationary, it records speeds as expected. When a
car appearing to do about 50 is approaching, the stationary gun does display
50.

When used from a moving car: (not used as intended):

No other traffic around:

The gun displays my speed. This is as expected as the reflections from the
road, trees, parked cars etc. is Doppler shifted to my road speed in the
frame of the gun (which is moving at my road speed).

Oncoming traffic:
Oncoming traffic is displayed as moving at a high speed. If I am going 45 on
a road with a speed limit of 45, oncoming traffic results in speeds around 90
or so.

Following traffic:

The gun almost always displays my road speed. This is because the reflection
from cars in front of me is that of the speed difference and that is always
lower than the ground speed reflection, unless a real speeder passes me
(hasn't happened yet).

Careful aim when passing a slow box truck sometimes displays a low speed.
This has happened twice, and only when (apparently) the ground reflection
isn't strong enough.

Inside a moving box truck:

Not quite, but I did bring it onto a commuter rail train. (Fortunately at the
end of the line so I moved into an empty car so passengers wouldn't be worried
about this guy with a radar gun walking around). The cars are metal with
windows, including windows in doors between cars but enough metal for this
purpose.

Front of car aiming to rear of train: No reading.
Rear of car aiming to front: No reading.
Aiming at ground out window: A speed consistent with the apparent speed of
train. (also changed the angle to see cosine effect in action).

Summary: 100% consistent with what is expected from SR and Einstein's
predictions, allowing for the fact the gun displays the highest speed, not
necessarily the current speed.

[Ned Latham]

Michael Moroney wrote:
> Ed Lake writes:

----snip----

Also 100% consistent with ballistic theories. What you have is the usual
null result.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 2 November 2019 16:19:04 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 11:01:20 AM UTC-4, Ed Lake wrote:
> >
> > is not measured, THE SPEED OF THE EARTH RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> > LIGHT is measured.
>
> Hello sir. I'm a new poster here.

No. You're an old, stinking shit.

> In physics, "speed" is *defined* via a specified reference frame/ coordinate system (typically, operationally defined).

Study your moronic gurus! fight your common sense
prejudices!

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 2 November 2019 20:46:51 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:

> Physicists know it has been MEASURED. And we know how general that
> measurement is (valid in every locally inertial frame).

Physicists don't assume!! They just KNOW!!!!!!!!!

[rotchm]

On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 2:49:23 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 November 2019 16:19:04 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> > Hello sir. I'm a new poster here.
>
> No.

Yes. I can support my claim. Can you?
At the time I wrote that, I was a new poster *to this thread*.
Show me where in this thread I posted previously from
2 November 2019 16:19:04 UTC+1.

See, YOU are the lying shit who can't even understand what he reads.
You Are an illiterate fool.

> You're an old, stinking shit.

A lie from a fanatic trash. You're just jealous of me.

> > In physics, "speed" is *defined* via a specified
> reference frame/ coordinate system (typically,
> operationally defined).
>
> Study your moronic gurus!

I don't have a guru. But the lying, plagiarizing fool Einstein is still
way smarter than you. And E has nothing to do with the definition of speed.
'Speed' was defined way before E. But you are too stupid to know this. You are nil at history, litterature, math, physics, socially, etc. Go fall in love with a sharp rock instead of seeking company here.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, November 3, 2019 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-5, Ed Lake wrote:

> I've done experiments with the gun, and I'll be writing a paper about
> those experiments. I'll be back when I've finished the paper

Reading your site and latest exp, u you say/believe that the gun measures its speed internally. But when point up to the sky (as you are driving) , it shows zero/no_reading, yet the gun is moving (its in your car which is moving ~ 50mph). can u clear that up?

And u also say that when pointed 30 deg up it indicates its speed (~ 50 mph) and thus internally measures its own speed somehow internally . Well if that were true, what happens if you put a big piece of cardboard in front of it?
won't it then indicate 0? Thus your "photons reflected inside the radome" argument falls apart, no?

[Paparios]

Lake does not understand the radiation pattern of a radar gun antenna. Therefore
he thinks pointing the radar gun at 30 degrees up, no reflection from the ground
will be received!!!

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 4 November 2019 16:08:11 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Monday, November 4, 2019 at 2:49:23 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 November 2019 16:19:04 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > Hello sir. I'm a new poster here.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes. I can support my claim.

You can, but nobody cares.

> > You're an old, stinking shit.
>
> A lie from a fanatic trash. You're just jealous of me.

Feel free to believe it.

> > Study your moronic gurus!
>
> I don't have a guru. But the lying, plagiarizing fool Einstein is still
> way smarter than you.

How many porsches did he have?

> And E has nothing to do with the definition of speed.
> 'Speed' was defined way before E.

Study your moronic gurus!!! Study, study, study and
study!!! You'll notice that yhis definition was
just a common sense prejudice. Hint: inflation.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/2/19 4:10 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 2:46:51 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 11/2/19 9:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 6:40:34 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
>>>>> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
>>>>> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
>>>>> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>>>
>>>> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.
>>>
>>> The experiments were not intended to measure the speed of light.
>>
>> FINALLY! You actually said something correct.
>>
>> So why do you make claims about them like "the speed of light as
>> measured by a moving observer" ???? -- after all, THEY WERE NOT INTENDED
>> TO MEASURE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. And they didn't.
>
> The experiments were intended to demonstrate that light arrives at c+v for
> an observer moving toward the source of the light, and at c-v for an
> observer moving away from the source of the light.

Only in your personal fantasy world. In the real world, if you bothered
to READ the papers, you would not find that in any of them. Because it
simply IS NOT TRUE. After all, NONE of them actually measured the speed
of light, so unlike you the authors KNOW they cannot make conclusions
about the speed of light.

>>> The

>>> speed of light is ASSUMED to be 299,792,458 meters per LOCAL second.
>>
>> Only by idiots like you.
>
> No, that is ACCORDING TO EINSTEIN.

As I said before: in 1905 it was a postulate, in 2019 it is an
established experimental fact.

Look at a calendar.

> Time dilation says that the length
> of a second changes

No. This is part of your basic misunderstanding. The second is ALWAYS
9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine transition of the Cs133 atom. IT
DOES NOT CHANGE.

"Time dilation" is a GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION, not any sort of "change" in
clocks or "time" or the duration of a second. This is ABSOLUTELY
REQUIRED by Einstein's FIRST postulate of SR (the Principle of Relativity).

Hint: if the duration of a second was different in
different inertial frames, then the laws of physics
could not possibly be the same in all such frames.

> Yes, I understand that you REQUIRE some "frame" that can be considered
> to be "stationary,"

That is simply not true. In 1905 Einstein LABELED an arbitrary inertial
frame "stationary", but there is no semantic content in such a LABEL. So
one can select ANY inertial frame, label it "bltzfq", and apply SR --
there is NOTHING special about the LABEL "stationary".

You have confused yourself by NOT READING his paper, and by NOT
UNDERSTANDING what he wrote.

> [,,, more nonsense]

Tom Roberts

[HGW]

On 02/11/19 23:07, rdac...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 12:22:12 AM UTC+10, Ed Lake wrote:
>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

>> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>
> This is the very definition of "Emission Theory" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory ) - basically the idea that the speed of light measured by an observer is determined by the relative velocity (or, if you prefer, the collective motion of emitter and receiver )
>

> I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
>> The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"
>
> The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory. The result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the emitter and receiver.

Typical brainwashed Dingleberry Crap!

See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc

Sagnac actually refutes Einstein silly theory.
--

I only reply to genuine scientists

[HGW]

On 03/11/19 02:31, Ed Lake wrote:

> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 7:08:53 AM UTC-5, Cmdr Ed Straker wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 12:22:12 AM UTC+10, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>>

>>> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>>>
>>> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>

>> Hi Ed,
>> Can you clarify this, also referring back to the "Radar Gun vs Wave Theory".
>>
>> So from above, you believe :

>>> the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>

>> You emphasised this in the other thread's discussions, like October 6th :
>> -- start Einstein quote --
>> Einstein : Once more, the example of the moving room with
>> outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light
>> signal is emitted from the centre of the room
>> ….
>> The inside observer: The light signal travelling from
>> the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously,
>> since all the walls are equally distant from the
>> light source and the velocity of light is the same in all
>> directions.
>> -- end Einstein Quote --
>>
>>> In other words, light hits the back wall at c+v and the front wall at c-v.
>> The person in the room doesn't see it because light returning to his
>> eyes will negate the difference.
>>
>>> The guy on the train sees an illusion because the light he turned on
>> hit the front wall at c-v
>>
>> So in summary, as you stated repeatedly though that thread, you believe :
>>
>> *** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed c + v or c - v
>>
>>
>> IN ADDITION,
>> From your page that you linked to above, you also believe (EMPHASIS mine):
>>
>>> light will be observed by a moving observer to arrive at c+v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer toward or away from THE EMITTER
>>
>> ( http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html )
>>
>> Again, you emphasised this in that other thread on October 10 :

>>
>>> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>>

>> So in summary, you must believe :
>>
>> *** For a truck moving at speed v, light from a radar gun fixed inside that truck will hit the wall of the truck at speed exactly c, since the velocity between the wall and the emitter is 0
>
> Okay, I see where you are getting confused. I probably should have written
> that v is the speed of the receiver toward or away from THE POINT OF EMISSION.
>
> When a moving emitter emits light toward a moving observer that is moving
> at the same speed and in the same direction as the emitter, the distance
> between the emitter and receiver does not change. HOWEVER, WHILE the light
> is traveling from the emitter to the receiver, THE RECEIVER IS MOVING AT v

> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. So, the light will hit the receiver at
> c+v or c-v just as if the emitter was stationary and only the receiver was
> moving.
>
>>
>>

>> It is worth restating that your statement above - let's repeat it here so there's no mistake :

>>
>>> I'm saying that an emitter ALWAYS emits light at c, whether the emitter is moving or not, and a moving receiver will receive that light at c+v or c-v where v is the velocity of the receiver toward or away from the emitter.
>>
>> This is the very definition of "Emission Theory" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory ) - basically the idea that the speed of light measured by an observer is determined by the relative velocity (or, if you prefer, the collective motion of emitter and receiver )
>

> NO. "Emission Theory" is ONLY about the speed of the EMITTER adding to the
> speed of light that is emitted.
>
> Einstein's Second Postulate 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 means that the speed of the EMITTER will NOT change the speed of
> light that is emitted.
>
> However, a moving observer WILL observe that light to arrive at c+v or
> c-v where v is the speed of the observer. And that is even true when
> the observer is moving at the same speed and in the same direction as
> the emitter. The observer observes the light to arrive at c+v or c-v
> which means the observer observes the light arriving at his speed

> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
>>

>> I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
>>> The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"
>>
>> The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory. The result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the emitter and receiver.
>

> "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
> travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
> however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
> or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
> traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
> encounter is at c+v or c-v.

Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
known experiment.

See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc

You might also like to read why Michelson was also wrong in his claimed refutation of Emission theory
www.scisite.info/michelson.doc


>
> Ed

[HGW]

On 02/11/19 10:40, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 11/1/19 9:22 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
>> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
>> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
>> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>

> Except that not a single one actually MEASURED the speed of light.

Correct, OWLS from a moving source has never been accurately measured...It is virtually impossible even with today's
clocks....which is why Einstein's silly theory has managed to stagnate Physics for one hundred years.

> You are just fantasizing that what you think "ought to be true" is supported by these experiments.
>
> In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.

Rubbish, Doppler shift, that is, 'Wave arrival rate', is a direct proof that light arrives at c+v.

>     Remember that in SR, light in vacuum travels with speed
>     c relative to ANY inertial frame, not "c-v" or "c+v".
>     This is QUITE DIFFERENT from your fantasies and claims.

Yes, one can all recognize bullshit when one sees it.
>> The best way to measure one-way speed of light from celestial objects is #2 on the list:  Measure the pulses of
>> objects that send out regular pulses of energy, like pulsars.
>
> You need to learn what the words you read and use ACTUALLY mean. That is NOT any sort of measurement of the SPEED of
> light. It is, after all, a measurement of the ARRIVAL RATE of pulses from the pulsar, NOTHING MORE. This measures
> DOPPLER SHIFT, not the speed of light. Concluding "c+v" and "c-v" are YOUR FANTASIES, not any type of actual measurement.

Doppler shift IS 'wave arrival rate/wave emission rate'...the former which obviously depends on relative speed between
source and observer.
I gather you believe the observer can actually change the physical structure of light in transit.
If light is approaching two differently moving observers, are you stupid enough to think that it has two correspondingly
different wavelength states while it travels?

>     More complete measurements and analysis show that both the
>     wavelength and the frequency of light/microwaves from such
>     distant sources are affected by earth's velocity, but the
>     product wavelength*frequency is not affected -- that is, of
>     course, the phase velocity of the light wave relative to
>     the inertial frame of the earth during the measurement.
>     That phase speed being constant (and equal to c) is of
>     course what SR predicts.

HAHAHHAHHHAHHA! What a pathetic statement! How could the wavelength of remote light in transit be dependent on all the
planets in the universe? HAHHAHHAHHHA! One of you better ones, Tom.
Light doesn't have a frequency. It has specific and absolute wavelengths as proposed by Maxwell. The term c/lambda is
clearly nothing other than 'wave emission rate' from its source.

> Tom Roberts

[HGW]

Ed, before you write anything else, you must read my thesis. You are correct that Doppler shift is 'wave arrival
rate/wave emission rate and that this is a direct indicator of c+v,,,, but still seem a little confused about a number
of other aspects of this subject. The ratpack will continue to make mincemeat of your arguments if you don't get the
facts straight..
www.scisite.info/bath.doc


> Ed

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 8:59:02 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> On 02/11/19 10:40, Tom Roberts wrote:

> > In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.
>
> Rubbish, Doppler shift, that is, 'Wave arrival rate', is a direct proof that light arrives at c+v.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the (blue) Doppler shift, that is 'Wave arrival rate', is a direct proof that the frequency of light (its color) is increased because, after all, the speed of light is always 'c', under any circumstances... as put forth by Einstein and proven over and over again over the last 110 years or so, if not longer than that. It has to be this way, otherwise, the different colors of stars, nebulae, etc. would arrive at various times and our views would be hopelessly muddled. The fact that you deny this is just another nail in your phony claim of being an actual physicist since you have a poorly photoshopped diploma that you are so proud of.

Of course, if you have evidence otherwise, well, bring it on, a Nobel awaits you. You can't, naturally, because you don't actually know much in the way of physics, as you have proven over and over.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Dreams of a poor fanatic idiot lacking the contact with
the reality. Anyone can check - in a GPS satellite it's
9,192,631,774+.
Face it: your moronic cult has no power to force your
idiocies on the reality, you can only enchant it.

> That is simply not true.

I always knew you don't really believe these wise things
you sometimes write about models.

[Paul B. Andersen]

https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[HGW]

On 06/11/19 17:02, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 8:59:02 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
>> On 02/11/19 10:40, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>>> In fact, NONE of them are inconsistent with the predictions of SR.
>>
>> Rubbish, Doppler shift, that is, 'Wave arrival rate', is a direct proof that light arrives at c+v.
>

> Henry George Wilson, the (blue) Doppler shift, that is 'Wave arrival rate', is a direct proof that the frequency of light (its color) is increased because, after all, the speed of light is always 'c', under any circumstances... as put forth by Einstein and proven over and over again over the last 110 years or so, if not longer than that. It has to be this way, otherwise, the different colors of stars, nebulae, etc. would arrive at various times and our views would be hopelessly muddled.

It is. That's why many perfecly stable stars appear to vary in brightness.

The fact that you deny this is just another nail in your phony claim of being an actual physicist since you have a
poorly photoshopped diploma that you are so proud of.

Poor pathetic fellow, I feel sorry for you. Light's 'frequency' is defined as c/lambda, which means wave emission
rate.It is not something that travels with the light itself. It only happens IN the source. At the observer, that
'frequency' is quite obviously (c+v)/lambda, wave arrival rate.

> Of course, if you have evidence otherwise, well, bring it on, a Nobel awaits you. You can't, naturally, because you don't actually know much in the way of physics, as you have proven over and over.

I have been informed by a PhD friend that my book certainly deserves a Nobel. After all, my sensational discoveries wipe
out hundreds of years of incorrect astronomy and physics.

[HGW]

On 06/11/19 19:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.11.2019 05.01, skrev HGW:
>> On 02/11/19 23:07, rdac...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you list The Sagnac Effect, stating quite correctly :
>>>> The experiment doesn't prove the "existence of the aether,"
>>>
>>> The point is that although it does not prove the aether, what it DOES do experimentally refute Emission Theory.  The
>>> result of Sagnac's experiments was to show that light does travel at c independent of the collective motion of the
>>> emitter and receiver.
>>
>> Typical brainwashed Dingleberry Crap!
>>
>> See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc
>>
>> Sagnac actually refutes Einstein silly theory.
>
> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf

Paul, you are wrong....hopelessly wrong.
The following might be too hard for you.
In a non-rotating sagnac loop, the number of wavelengths in the two paths is the same. The split halves leave in phase
and arrive in phase but not necessarily in the same phase as they left. During an acceleration, The number increases in
one path and decreases in the other, for fairly obvious reasons. A wave that is split at the 45 mirror does not reunite
with its other half during a speed change and interference fringes are seen to move as their numbers change.
When the acceleration ceases the path lengths remain different and so therefore do the numbers of absolute wavelengths
in each path. The travel times of any particular split wave is the same in both paths, as you correctly showed and so
each pair of split halves again reunites...but the fringe pattern remains displaced because of the different number of
waves that now exist in each path.
Let's say there are one billion in one path and one billion and fifty in the other. During the transits around the ring,
the wave arrival rate is greater in one path than the other and it is that which maintains the fringe displacement.
1000000000 will arrive at the detector from one direction and 1000000050 from the other. Call those 'frequency' if you
wish, (c+v)/l and (c-v)/l.
If the travel times were not equal as your theory predicts, then the difference in the number of waves in each path
would continually change and the fringes would move at a constant rate during constant speed. That is not what is observed.
You aether explanation also assumes that the emitted light somehow 'knows' it is to be sent around a loop as it exits
the splitting mirror. Why else would it leave that mirror at c+v in one direction and c-v in the other?

> https://paulba.no/pdf/four_mirror_sagnac.pdf
> https://paulba.no/FourMirrorSagnac.html
>


--

[Pálek Slovù]

HGW wrote:

>> https://paulba.no/pdf/sagnac_ring.pdf
>
> Paul, you are wrong....hopelessly wrong.
> The following might be too hard for you.
> In a non-rotating sagnac loop, the number of wavelengths in the two
> paths is the same.

No, that's wavenumbers, not wavelengths. Neither you nor paul knows this
elementary thing. It reveals the deplorable education system driven in his
country.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> > "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
> > travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
> > however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
> > or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
> > traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> > LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
> > encounter is at c+v or c-v.
>
> Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
> known experiment.
>
> See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc

You need to learn how to write scientific papers. You use the acronym
"BaTh" without explaining what it means. Do you assume that everyone
is suppose to know?

And who wants a discussion with someone who can only point to his own
papers and say "Read this"?

Ed

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 8:11:56 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> You need to learn how to write scientific papers. You use the acronym
> "BaTh" without explaining what it means. Do you assume that everyone
> is suppose to know?
>

It is the murky waters that you cranks are bathing in. Daily.

[HGW]

On 07/11/19 03:11, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>> "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
>>> travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
>>> however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
>>> or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
>>> traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
>>> LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
>>> encounter is at c+v or c-v.
>>
>> Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
>> known experiment.
>>
>> See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc
>
> You need to learn how to write scientific papers. You use the acronym
> "BaTh" without explaining what it means. Do you assume that everyone
> is suppose to know?

BaTh has been prominent on this NG for twenty years. Its meaning is obvious and is defined near the start of my thesis
'Ballistic Theory of Light'.

> And who wants a discussion with someone who can only point to his own
> papers and say "Read this"?

Well Ed, if you want to remain half educated, that's not my worry. You're on the right track but will never get anywhere
until you fully understand what Einstein did. Are you afraid of the truth like the dingleberries are? My book is not a
paper. It is an 80 page, very comprehensive thesis that explains why Einstein's theory is wrong. It includes proof. it
is now being published on line.

[HGW]

We don't ooze shit like you dingleberries.

[HGW]

Is that as far as you got? Was the rest too hard for you too?

Wavenumber is correct and could be used but one has to use kindergarten language when trying to explain something to a
dingleberry.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:28:15 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> On 07/11/19 03:11, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> >>> "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
> >>> travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
> >>> however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
> >>> or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
> >>> traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
> >>> LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
> >>> encounter is at c+v or c-v.
> >>
> >> Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
> >> known experiment.
> >>
> >> See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc
> >
> > You need to learn how to write scientific papers. You use the acronym
> > "BaTh" without explaining what it means. Do you assume that everyone
> > is suppose to know?
>
> BaTh has been prominent on this NG for twenty years. Its meaning is obvious and is defined near the start of my thesis
> 'Ballistic Theory of Light'.

I don't recall that we ever exchanged posts before, so BaTh was new to me.

I browsed your book/paper titled "Ballistic Light Revisited" and it seems
you misinterpret Einstein's theories, and you are another in a long list
of people who want to reestablish the "aether" theory. Your paper says
on page 3 (why the hell don't you use page numbers????):

"The theory which followed, Special Relativity (SR), was a mathematical
description of a physical universe that was consistent with those postulates.
It more or less implied that the individual reference frame associated with
each and every observer constituted a kind of 'personal aether' in which light
always moved at precisely c and the physical properties of relatively moving
objects were transformed just as they were in Lorentz's single absolute Aether."

That is NOT what Einstein's postulates imply. They imply that all motion
is relative to the LOCAL speed of light (making the aether "superfluous") and
the LOCAL speed of light is determined by how fast a LOCATION is moving
relative to the MAXIMUM speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458
meters PER SECOND, but the length of a second varies with speed (and
altitude). The maximum speed of light is reached at a stationary location
where there is no influence by gravity.

Ed

[HGW]

On 07/11/19 09:17, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 3:28:15 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>> On 07/11/19 03:11, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 10:26:17 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>>>>> "Emission Theory" is WRONG. The Sagnac Effect demonstrates that. Light
>>>>> travels at c independent of the motion of the EMITTER. The Sagnac Effect,
>>>>> however, shows that light ARRIVES at an observer (moving mirrors) at c+v
>>>>> or c-v. "Collective motion" is irrelevant, since WHILE the light is
>>>>> traveling at c, the observer is traveling at v RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF
>>>>> LIGHT, and when the light encounters the observer (or moving mirrors) that
>>>>> encounter is at c+v or c-v.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Ed, you were correct up until this point. The old Emission Theory,, now upgraded to BaTh, is supported by every
>>>> known experiment.
>>>>
>>>> See: www.scisite.info/sagnac.doc
>>>
>>> You need to learn how to write scientific papers. You use the acronym
>>> "BaTh" without explaining what it means. Do you assume that everyone
>>> is suppose to know?
>>
>> BaTh has been prominent on this NG for twenty years. Its meaning is obvious and is defined near the start of my thesis
>> 'Ballistic Theory of Light'.
>
> I don't recall that we ever exchanged posts before, so BaTh was new to me.
>
> I browsed your book/paper titled "Ballistic Light Revisited" and it seems
> you misinterpret Einstein's theories, and you are another in a long list
> of people who want to reestablish the "aether" theory.

Don't be silly. The thesis is all about the ballistic nature of light. It points out how all of astronomy and physics is
still based on hthe existence of an imaginary 'aether'.

Your paper says
> on page 3 (why the hell don't you use page numbers????):
>
> "The theory which followed, Special Relativity (SR), was a mathematical
> description of a physical universe that was consistent with those postulates.
> It more or less implied that the individual reference frame associated with
> each and every observer constituted a kind of 'personal aether' in which light
> always moved at precisely c and the physical properties of relatively moving
> objects were transformed just as they were in Lorentz's single absolute Aether."
>
> That is NOT what Einstein's postulates imply. They imply that all motion
> is relative to the LOCAL speed of light (making the aether "superfluous") and
> the LOCAL speed of light is determined by how fast a LOCATION is moving
> relative to the MAXIMUM speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458
> meters PER SECOND, but the length of a second varies with speed (and
> altitude). The maximum speed of light is reached at a stationary location
> where there is no influence by gravity.

No that is not right at all.
All speeds, including that of light are relative, ie., frame dependent and must be specified relative to a particular FoR.
Maxwell's equations demonstrate how and why light always moves at c relative to its source, although many questions
remain. My variable star investigations also show quite conclusively that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
varying speeds, causing those star to appear to vary in brightness when they are really stable. The fact that just about
every observed light curve can be matched in this way cannot be just coincidence.
Lorentz, Poincare and others already knew the aether was 'superfluous' because when their fictional LTs were applied,
its presence was deemed to be impossible to establish. OWLS would always be measured to have the value c, irrespective
of observer's absolute speed. However the idea of a single absolute reference frame remained an essential factor because
it alone was responsible for the crucial unification of light speeds from differently moving sources. Without that,
neither LET nor SR would work at all. Einstein's merely assumed the aether existed and stated its unifying role in his
P2. There is no mention in SR of any other mechanism that might unify all light speeds.
In essence, Einstein created SR by expressing Lorentz's conclusions as a simple differential equation, the solution of
which turned out to be the Lorentz transforms. What a surprise!

TIME and space are not related in any way and nor is TIME dependent on speed. How could it be when speed is a function
of Time, L/T. That idea was just a fictional consequence of the bogus 'light clock' debacle and of the concocted LTs
that were put forward to explain the null MMX result. (The MMX interferometer was actually two light clocks at right
angles).
There is no 'maximum speed' for light, although nothing in the known universe appears to be moving at anywhere near c
relative to anything else. Light from an approaching car arrives at greater than c (in vacuum).

Importantly, two-way light speed is consistently measured to have the same value, c, a fact that clearly refutes aether
theories and verifies the ballistic nature of light.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
> On 07/11/19 09:17, Ed Lake wrote:
> > I browsed your book/paper titled "Ballistic Light Revisited" and it seems
> > you misinterpret Einstein's theories, and you are another in a long list
> > of people who want to reestablish the "aether" theory.
>
> Don't be silly. The thesis is all about the ballistic nature of light. It points out how all of astronomy and physics is
> still based on hthe existence of an imaginary 'aether'.

Okay. Any "ballistic nature of light" can be easily debunked.

>
> Your paper says
> > on page 3 (why the hell don't you use page numbers????):
> >
> > "The theory which followed, Special Relativity (SR), was a mathematical
> > description of a physical universe that was consistent with those postulates.
> > It more or less implied that the individual reference frame associated with
> > each and every observer constituted a kind of 'personal aether' in which light
> > always moved at precisely c and the physical properties of relatively moving
> > objects were transformed just as they were in Lorentz's single absolute Aether."
> >
> > That is NOT what Einstein's postulates imply. They imply that all motion
> > is relative to the LOCAL speed of light (making the aether "superfluous") and
> > the LOCAL speed of light is determined by how fast a LOCATION is moving
> > relative to the MAXIMUM speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458
> > meters PER SECOND, but the length of a second varies with speed (and
> > altitude). The maximum speed of light is reached at a stationary location
> > where there is no influence by gravity.
>
> No that is not right at all.
> All speeds, including that of light are relative, ie., frame dependent and must be specified relative to a particular FoR.

That is just for MATHEMATICS. Reality doesn't require Frames of Reference.
Reality is about what is ACTUALLY happening.

> Maxwell's equations demonstrate how and why light always moves at c relative to its source, although many questions
> remain. My variable star investigations also show quite conclusively that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
> varying speeds, causing those star to appear to vary in brightness when they are really stable.

They vary in brightness because when the star is moving toward the earth,
the photons are closer together. Thus we see more photons per unit of time.
The speed of the photons is still c.

<snip> Incoherent babble.

> Einstein's merely assumed the aether existed and stated its unifying role in his
> P2. There is no mention in SR of any other mechanism that might unify all light speeds.

Einstein said that measuring motion relative to the speed of light made
the aether "superfluous." SR says that all light travels at 299,792,458
meters PER SECOND, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES with the speed of
the emitter.

>
> TIME and space are not related in any way and nor is TIME dependent on speed. How could it be when speed is a function
> of Time, L/T. That idea was just a fictional consequence of the bogus 'light clock' debacle and of the concocted LTs
> that were put forward to explain the null MMX result. (The MMX interferometer was actually two light clocks at right
> angles).
> There is no 'maximum speed' for light, although nothing in the known universe appears to be moving at anywhere near c
> relative to anything else. Light from an approaching car arrives at greater than c (in vacuum).

There IS a maximum for the speed of light. But, the only place where it
occurs is at the point of the Big Bang. That is the only STATIONARY point
in the universe, because all motion is AWAY from that point. PLUS, it
is devoid of gravitational influences because all matter is evenly distributed
in all directions from that point.

>
> Importantly, two-way light speed is consistently measured to have the same value, c, a fact that clearly refutes aether
> theories and verifies the ballistic nature of light.

I agree that there is no aether. However, Einstein's second postulate
says that "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 means that if I shine a light in your direction when I am standing
still, the light will travel at c. When I move in your direction
and continue to shine the light, the light will still always travel at c.
In reality, of course, it the light is traveling a tiny tiny bit slower,
because due to my speed, the length of a second for me is a bit longer.

You, however, will see the light as getting brighter for two reasons:
(1) The emitter is getting closer. (2) I am moving in the direction that
the photons are traveling, so the photons will be closer together than
if I did the emitting while standing still. (Between each emitted photon,
I moved closer to you, so there is less distance between each photon.)

Ed

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 07-nov.-2019 om 16:53 schreef Ed Lake:

> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:

[snip whatever]

>> Importantly, two-way light speed is consistently measured to have
>> the same value, c, a fact that clearly refutes aether theories and
>> verifies the ballistic nature of light.
>
> I agree that there is no aether.

Whatever it is you idiots are agreeing upon, it is
entirely for entertainment reasons :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Pálek Slovù]

No. That's the Large Hadron Collider, located at the edge of Switzerland.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:53:04 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:

> SR says that all light travels at 299,792,458
> meters PER SECOND, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES with the speed of
> the emitter.

No, SR does not say that at all, you are just making this up. A second is the same everywhere, all the time.

> There IS a maximum for the speed of light. But, the only place where it
> occurs is at the point of the Big Bang. That is the only STATIONARY point
> in the universe, because all motion is AWAY from that point. PLUS, it
> is devoid of gravitational influences because all matter is evenly distributed
> in all directions from that point.

Gobbledegook. There is no stationary point in the universe...

> In reality, of course, it the light is traveling a tiny tiny bit slower,
> because due to my speed, the length of a second for me is a bit longer.

BZZZZT! The length of a second is the same everywhere... and light always travels at c, no matter how fast or slow you are moving.

However, it is entertaining to see 2 cranks arguing as to which of them slings the best bullshit...

[HGW]

On 08/11/19 02:53, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 8:26:24 PM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>> On 07/11/19 09:17, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> I browsed your book/paper titled "Ballistic Light Revisited" and it seems
>>> you misinterpret Einstein's theories, and you are another in a long list
>>> of people who want to reestablish the "aether" theory.
>>
>> Don't be silly. The thesis is all about the ballistic nature of light. It points out how all of astronomy and physics is
>> still based on hthe existence of an imaginary 'aether'.
>
> Okay. Any "ballistic nature of light" can be easily debunked.

How? Lots have tried and if you seriously read their attempts you will see why they are all wrong.
My thesis sums it up.

>>> That is NOT what Einstein's postulates imply. They imply that all motion
>>> is relative to the LOCAL speed of light (making the aether "superfluous") and
>>> the LOCAL speed of light is determined by how fast a LOCATION is moving
>>> relative to the MAXIMUM speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458
>>> meters PER SECOND, but the length of a second varies with speed (and
>>> altitude). The maximum speed of light is reached at a stationary location
>>> where there is no influence by gravity.
>>
>> No that is not right at all.
>> All speeds, including that of light are relative, ie., frame dependent and must be specified relative to a particular FoR.
>
> That is just for MATHEMATICS.

Christ you're really dumb!

Reality doesn't require Frames of Reference.
> Reality is about what is ACTUALLY happening.

All speeds require a frame of reference...and that includes light.

>> Maxwell's equations demonstrate how and why light always moves at c relative to its source, although many questions
>> remain. My variable star investigations also show quite conclusively that light from orbiting stars travels to Earth at
>> varying speeds, causing those star to appear to vary in brightness when they are really stable.
>
> They vary in brightness because when the star is moving toward the earth,
> the photons are closer together. Thus we see more photons per unit of time.
> The speed of the photons is still c.

That is simple Doppler brightening. It is in phase with radial velocity as much smaller than the brightness changes due
to light speeds variation, which are in phase with acceleration.

> <snip> Incoherent babble.

I reckoned it would be too hard for you.

>> Einstein's merely assumed the aether existed and stated its unifying role in his
>> P2. There is no mention in SR of any other mechanism that might unify all light speeds.
>
> Einstein said that measuring motion relative to the speed of light made
> the aether "superfluous." SR says that all light travels at 299,792,458
> meters PER SECOND, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES with the speed of
> the emitter.

Crap. You're worse than Seto.

>> TIME and space are not related in any way and nor is TIME dependent on speed. How could it be when speed is a function
>> of Time, L/T. That idea was just a fictional consequence of the bogus 'light clock' debacle and of the concocted LTs
>> that were put forward to explain the null MMX result. (The MMX interferometer was actually two light clocks at right
>> angles).
>> There is no 'maximum speed' for light, although nothing in the known universe appears to be moving at anywhere near c
>> relative to anything else. Light from an approaching car arrives at greater than c (in vacuum).
>
> There IS a maximum for the speed of light. But, the only place where it
> occurs is at the point of the Big Bang.

There was no BB. There have been lots of little bangs.

>That is the only STATIONARY point

If there had been a BB there would be a centre...but there wasn't one.

> in the universe, because all motion is AWAY from that point. PLUS, it
> is devoid of gravitational influences because all matter is evenly distributed
> in all directions from that point.

You finally made a correct statement

>> Importantly, two-way light speed is consistently measured to have the same value, c, a fact that clearly refutes aether
>> theories and verifies the ballistic nature of light.
>
> I agree that there is no aether. However, Einstein's second postulate
> says that "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 means that if I shine a light in your direction when I am standing
> still, the light will travel at c. When I move in your direction
> and continue to shine the light, the light will still always travel at c.
> In reality, of course, it the light is traveling a tiny tiny bit slower,
> because due to my speed, the length of a second for me is a bit longer.

What a load of crap. Why don't you just accept the truth. The light moves at c+v.

> You, however, will see the light as getting brighter for two reasons:
> (1) The emitter is getting closer. (2) I am moving in the direction that
> the photons are traveling, so the photons will be closer together than
> if I did the emitting while standing still. (Between each emitted photon,
> I moved closer to you, so there is less distance between each photon.)

That effect is usually small.
Read my thesis and LEARN some facts.
On second thoughts, if page numbers are the most important things in your life, forget it.

[HGW]

I think Ed Lake must be related to Seto. But both make more sense than Einstein.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge scribbled, with crayon...

"I think Ed Lake must be related to Seto. But both make more sense than Einstein."

Ralph, if you were to hook up with these guys you would revive The Three Stooges perfectly...

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 08-nov.-2019 om 09:12 schreef pnal...@gmail.com:

> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge scribbled, with crayon...
>
> "I think Ed Lake must be related to Seto. But both make more sense than Einstein."
>
> Ralph, if you were to hook up with these guys you would revive The Three Stooges perfectly...
>

Hmmmmm, I think that "Richard Hertz", rather than Ed Lake, filled
Androcles' gaping vacancy.

Dirk Vdm

[Odd Bodkin]

Let’s observe Henry’s MO, which involves practiced and reflexive quips that
don’t actually have to be consistent with each other. Such as the following
two responses. First:

>
> Christ you're really dumb!
>
> Reality doesn't require Frames of Reference.

And then immediately next:

>
> All speeds require a frame of reference...and that includes light.
>
>>>

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

[Michael Moroney]

Well we could have the four of them be the Three Stooges three at a time,
like Larry, Moe, Curly and Shemp for the Stooges.
Do we need a Curly Joe?

[Dono,]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 4:05:01 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Do we need a Curly Joe?

Yep, Ned Latham fits the bill

[kenseto]

On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:53:04 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>
> > SR says that all light travels at 299,792,458
> > meters PER SECOND, but the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES with the speed of
> > the emitter.
>
> No, SR does not say that at all, you are just making this up. A second is the same everywhere, all the time.

So are you saying that a second is a universal interval of time?
IOW, the passage of a second in A’s frame is corresponded to the passage of a second in B’s frame?
What does the following equation mean?
Delta(t’)=Gamma*Delta(t)

[Dono,]

On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 6:55:12 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
>
> What does the following equation mean?
> Delta(t’)=Gamma*Delta(t)
>

1. Lorentz transformation of COORDINATE time.
2. Relationship between PROPER and COORDINATE time.

Proper time id frame-INVARIANT, cretinoid.

[HGW]

The more the relativist ratpack screams and yells without uttering a word of science, the more we know we are right.

[Odd Bodkin]

HGW <H...@home.net> wrote:
> On 09/11/19 01:39, Dono, wrote:
>> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 4:05:01 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>> Do we need a Curly Joe?
>>
>> Yep, Ned Latham fits the bill
>
> The more the relativist ratpack screams and yells without uttering a word
> of science, the more we know we are right.
>
>

The more you THINK you’re right. There’s nothing so immovable as a fool’s
convictions.

[HGW]

On 08/11/19 21:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> HGW <H...@home.net> wrote:

>>
>>
>>>>> That is NOT what Einstein's postulates imply. They imply that all motion
>>>>> is relative to the LOCAL speed of light (making the aether "superfluous") and
>>>>> the LOCAL speed of light is determined by how fast a LOCATION is moving
>>>>> relative to the MAXIMUM speed of light. The speed of light is 299,792,458
>>>>> meters PER SECOND, but the length of a second varies with speed (and
>>>>> altitude). The maximum speed of light is reached at a stationary location
>>>>> where there is no influence by gravity.
>>>>
>>>> No that is not right at all.
>>>> All speeds, including that of light are relative, ie., frame dependent
>>>> and must be specified relative to a particular FoR.
>>>
>>> That is just for MATHEMATICS.
>
> Let’s observe Henry’s MO, which involves practiced and reflexive quips that
> don’t actually have to be consistent with each other. Such as the following
> two responses. First:
>
>>
>> Christ you're really dumb!
>>
>> Reality doesn't require Frames of Reference.

Bodkin, Ed Lake wrote that

> And then immediately next:
>
>>
>> All speeds require a frame of reference...and that includes light.

I wrote that,

[HGW]

On 09/11/19 08:39, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> HGW <H...@home.net> wrote:
>> On 09/11/19 01:39, Dono, wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 8, 2019 at 4:05:01 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do we need a Curly Joe?
>>>
>>> Yep, Ned Latham fits the bill
>>
>> The more the relativist ratpack screams and yells without uttering a word
>> of science, the more we know we are right.
>>
>>
>
> The more you THINK you’re right. There’s nothing so immovable as a fool’s
> convictions.

You should know, Bodkin...

[Jose Gonzalez]

kenseto wrote:

> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 2:45:31 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 7:53:04 AM UTC-8, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>> > SR says that all light travels at 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND, but
>> > the LENGTH OF A SECOND VARIES with the speed of the emitter.
>>
>> No, SR does not say that at all, you are just making this up. A second
>> is the same everywhere, all the time.
>
> So are you saying that a second is a universal interval of time?
> IOW, the passage of a second in A’s frame is corresponded to the passage
> of a second in B’s frame? What does the following equation mean?
> Delta(t’)=Gamma*Delta(t)

And no, a _gamma factor_ theory is a relativity in disguise theory.
Please rewrite. You just copied _relativity without the tensors_ in it.

[Mikko]

On 2019-11-01 14:22:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
> Here's the link:
> http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>
> Ed

The author has now revised the page and retracted the claim that the
experiments support variable speed of light. The descriptions of the
experiments and their relation to the author's claims are not better
than they were.

Mikko'

[Ed Lake]

I'm working on a paper that will explain everything in detail. Yes, I was
wrong. The experimenters all claimed that light can be received at c+v and c-v
where v is the speed of an observer moving toward or away from the
oncoming photons. I accepted what the experiments claimed. Now I see
that the experimenters misinterpreted their own data. They didn't understand
how kinetic energy can be added to a photon. I didn't, either, until recently.

When I finish my new paper in a week or so, I'll start a new thread about it.

Ed

[Mikko]

On 2022-08-06 13:58:34 +0000, Ed Lake said:

> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 1:39:06 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2019-11-01 14:22:10 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments
>>> which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving
>>> observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer
>>> RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>>>
>>> Here's the link:
>>> http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>>>
>>> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> The author has now revised the page and retracted the claim that the
>> experiments support variable speed of light. The descriptions of the
>> experiments and their relation to the author's claims are not better
>> than they were.
>
> I'm working on a paper that will explain everything in detail. Yes, I was
> wrong. The experimenters all claimed that light can be received at c+v and c-v
> where v is the speed of an observer moving toward or away from the
> oncoming photons.

I does not make sense to say that light is received at c+v or c-v or c.
Light, like anthing else, only has a speed between two events, as the
speed is the ration of the distance to the diration of those two events.
Reception is a single event so does not have a distance nor a duration.

> I accepted what the experiments claimed. Now I see
> that the experimenters misinterpreted their own data.

In some cases that indeed happened. However, in some cases you obviously
misinterpreted their conclusion.

> They didn't understand how kinetic energy can be added to a photon. I
> didn't, either, until recently.

The experiments presented on the page
http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
don't observe the enrgy of the photon. They measure the time of flight
or difference between two times of flight.

Mikko

[Sylvia Else]

On 02-Nov-19 1:22 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
>
> Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
>
> Ed

Your number 2 doesn't even purport to be a speed measurement. The
changing pulse rate is a Doppler effect.

Sylvia.

[Mikko]

The same cn be said about 5, the phenomenon is the same. Speed of light
can be inferred from the Doppler effect if its constancy is assumed.
Neither of the experiments tests the constancy of the speed of light,
nor anything about the energy (color) of photons.

Mikko

[Ufonaut]

It does merit pointing out that for years we have been patiently explaining to you that the observer does NOT receive the photons at c+v,c-v, whereas all along you have been claiming that he does, and that Einstein supports your view.

Great, now you admit that you were wrong about that. For that, I totally give you credit - to publicly admit that you were wrong about something is a rare trait indeed.

From your home page, I see you go into more detail :
=======
However, after studying the subject for months, it now seems clear to me that I was wrong in accepting what the experiments claimed. The speed of light is "invariant" in that it is always emitted and received at the speed of 299,792,458 meters per second. But, because the length of a second varies due to Time Dilation, the length of a second is different virtually everywhere.
=======

We agree to a certain extent - except I think you need to go further. As you know, those of us who support the mainstream view have always said that Einstein stated THREE effects of SR :
- Time Dilation
- Length Contraction
- The skew of Simultaneity, aka "Relativity of Simultaneity"

OK, let's leave that third one for now, and look at Length Contraction. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I recall that you have always been on the fence about Length Contraction, never really accepting it as certain as much as Time Dilation.

So you now admit that light is always received at c. A speed is "distance / time" - eg, "metres / second". So let's say Alice measures a ray of light to be passing her at speed 299,792,458 meters per second, and you now admit that Bob who is passing her at v will also measure that SAME ray of light to be passing him at speed v as well.

You attribute this to Bob's Time Dilation, "because the length of a second varies due to Time Dilation" - but think a bit further ......

Alice measures 299,792,458 meters per second. Bob's "second" is different from Alice's "second" - as a "for instance", let's say Bob's second is 10 "Alice seconds" (to everybody else here who know SR - yes, I know, but one step at a time ! ;) ).

By itself in the absence of any other effects, wouldn't that mean that Bob would receive that light ray at a speed of 2,997,924,580 meters per second ? On the contrary, since we now agree that Bob does receive that light at that same 299,792,458 meters per second even by his seconds, doesn't that DEMAND that the length of his metre must have reduced by the exact same ratio that his second has dilated by ??

What do you think ?

[Ufonaut]

Doh !!! Stupid typo : "will also measure that SAME ray of light to be passing him at speed v as well." should of course be :

"will also measure that SAME ray of light to be passing him at speed 299,792,458 meters per second as well."

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Sunday, 7 August 2022 at 12:27:58 UTC+2, Ufonaut wrote:
> Doh !!! Stupid typo : "will also measure that SAME ray of light to be passing him at speed v as well." should of course be :
>
> "will also measure that SAME ray of light to be passing him at speed 299,792,458 meters per second as well."

He will measure what we wants - it's him
preparing the measurement procedures, isn't he?

What the Shit believers are trying to - is
persuading us that we're FORCED to measure
as they want to, because this is THE BEST
WAY.
As anyone can check in GPS, they don't
succeed ata all.

[Sylvia Else]

I didn't get as far as 5. I had already reached the limit of my daily
tolerance of idiocy.

Sylvia.

[Ed Lake]

There were some on line web sites and papers which claimed #2 showed that
light could arrive at c+v or c-v. Those sites and papers have since been deleted.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I can't remember why I put #5 on the list.

Ed

[Sylvia Else]

I now realise I was replying to a years-old post. Now sure how that
happened.

Sylvia.

[Ed Lake]

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-5, Ufonaut wrote:

I still don't see any reason or need for "length contraction." Mathematically it might
make sense, but when I think about Time Dilation I ask the question: WHAT IS TIME
if it can slow down and speed up?

I consider time to be "particle spin." Every proton, electron and neutron is a tiny
clock that ticks at a specific rate. And that tick rate slows down when those particles
travel very fast or get close to a gravitational mass.

I suppose it's possible that when a particle's spin rate (or field oscillation rate) slows
down it is because it gains mass. Could that cause the particles to move closer
together? I dunno. So, right now I'm neutral on the subject of length contraction.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I started this thread on November 1, 2019, when I first created my web
page about "variable speed of light experiments." The arguments ended
10 days later, on November 11, 2019.

A few days ago, when I mentioned modifying that page on my web site,
Mikko resurrected this thread and restarted the discussion.

Ed

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Saturday, November 2, 2019 at 7:56:53 AM UTC-7, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Friday, November 1, 2019 at 9:56:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > On 2/11/2019 1:22 am, Ed Lake wrote:
> > > FYI, I have compiled a list of 8 variable speed of light experiments which demonstrate that the speed of light as measured by a moving observer will be c-v or c-v, where v is the speed of the observer RELATIVE TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
> > >
> > > Here's the link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
> > >
> > > If you know of other experiments which should be on the list, let me know.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >
> >

> > Usual stuff where Ed misunderstands what he's read.
> >
> > I can't even see why Ed would think that Rømer's work supported his
> > contention.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> Rømer's work shows that, when the earth is moving toward Jupiter, the
> elapsed time between eclipses was shorter than when the earth was moving
> away from Jupiter. The speed of light is constant, so the difference
> MUST be due to the velocity of the earth toward or away from Jupiter.
>
> When the earth is moving TOWARD Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of
> Jupiter and Io arrives on earth at c+v. When the earth is moving AWAY
> from Jupiter, the sunlight reflected off of Jupiter and IO arrives on
> earth at c-v. In both cases, v is the speed of the earth toward Jupiter.
>
> If the speed of light was c for both the emitter and the observer,
> there would be no difference in the measured times of the eclipses.
>
> Ed

My favorite is "Eclipses of Io".

This is because according to usual theories,
gravity points at the instantaneous source object,
not its image, which traveled at light speed the distance.

So, there is the Eclipse affects for what light was in the image,
that are reflected after occulation, by the other Fresnel focus.

Also one time I put in theory about Fresnel theory lensing,
works about same as microlensing and usual gravitational lensing.

Any talk of "kinetic energy of light" here is having photons,
in the theory, or they are rays or waves.

It seems the only ray in theory is gamma rays,
where X-rays and so on are "radiation", gamma rays.

Everything else is particles, or rather with respect, field.

Then rays are directly the energy, ....

These are as much "variable speed of image" about
"constant speed of source". (Constant velocity of light.)

There's no "time dilation" without because of "space contraction".
(Length contraction and time dilation, same as space contraction.)

Basically looking at the volume terms in geometry,
that happen to be squared in volume to chalk those
into what is square in the area, or circular, that it's
"square in the powers of the radius and diameter respectively".

Looking at something like that for a usual monumental term.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CS19/Session/A01.1

"... I'll end with relativity and quantum schemes for faster than light communication."

Batphone.

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980SvA....24..128M

"[This review of this] book is occasioned by the tercentenary of
Olaus Roemer's discovery that the speed of light is finite."


(That the speed of light is finite, not that gravity's is not infinite.)