Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Stan Byers

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 9:24:55 PM1/30/06
to

Hello Light Speed Investigators,

It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded the
main argument.

The one and lonely single fact that has to be recognized to prove that light
speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as
discovered by Roemer circa 1676.

This fact establishes that light from Jupiter travels on all radials from
Jupiter at " c " in relation to Jupiter. Since Earth has a changing velocity
on a radial from Jupiter, there is a relative velocity between Earth and the
light train which is " not c " . If there exists a delay or advance in the
eclipse event timing,... it is not possible for the light speed in the
intervening space to be constant in relation to Earth.

Roemer, many other astronomers and Nasa have established that the eclipse
period of Io in relation to the Sun line to Jupiter is 152,915.9 seconds
(sec/cycle)or 1.77 days/cycle. The important point concerning this period is
the fact that it does not vary. If the Earth could linger at the near point
to Jupiter, it could be observed that Io's timing in crossing the Sun line
to Jupiter does not vary over the years, the frequency being approximately
206.4 cycles per Earth year. It would make a very accurate clock for Sun
dwellers.

When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed timing
of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed of
the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain in
timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for Roemer
to record.

If the mechanics of the phrase,...if the speed of light remained constant
relative to the Earth, the observed timing of Io's period would not
change,...is not completely clear,...the reader will not be able understand
the main argument of the Light Speed versus Special Relative paper.
A second concept which is also critical to understanding the argument is,...
you cannot separate the speed and timing of the eclipse event from the speed
of the light.

Roemer's 1003 second delay is the accumulated change in observed period due
to Earth's motion relative to Jupiter.
A change in observed period is a Doppler effect.
A Doppler effect results when an observer obtains a closing or retreating
speed relative to the source.
Therefore the change observed in the period of Io indicates that light speed
is not constant relative to observers.

Accuracy in measuring the eclipse timing and accuracy in the graphs
demonstrating the changes of the eclipse period timing are not critical nor
required to validate this argument.
The single fact that Roemer's 1003 second delay exists,...makes the second
postulate of Special Relative impossible.

In addition to Roemer's discovery there are two other examples of EM
radiation demonstrating that it's speed is constant only in relation to the
source,...and is not constant to all observers regardless of their line of
sight velocity relative to the source.

One example has been available on the web site of B. G. Wallace using 1969
radar data to establish c + v for the observers relative speed of light. The
information is available at

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

I have not yet reviewed his example in detail, I believe it is based on the
analysis of radar measurements between Earth and Venus. I fully expect that
his work is another valid example of the failure of the Special Relativity
concept.

A second example is provided by data rates between spacecraft and Earth. The
fact that Doppler effects are utilized between Earth and spacecraft is
another sure indication that EM radiation maintains " c " in relation to the
source and not the observer. When the radio carrier frequency of a
spacecraft is known and a Doppler shift or a change in a Doppler shift of
the carrier and data is observed, how is it possible to assume that the
"free space speed" did not change in relation to the observer ?
The following link from IEEE provides a quote regarding a problem and repair
required due to improper recognition of the effects of relative EM speed.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6

QUOTE: ESA IMMEDIATELY CONVENED AN INQUIRY BOARD, with two NASA
observers. One of them was Richard Horttor, who was then JPL's
telecommunications system engineer for the Cassini project. He recalls, "We
worked our way out by being totally candid from top to bottom once we
detected the problem. There was no hesitancy or lack of resources. Nor was
there any 'nation-to-nation finger-pointing.' "
The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that
built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver
sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's
carrier signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another
subtle consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the
carrier wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but
also the digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push
the signal out of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the
phase-modulated carrier.

Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving
from Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of
8192 bits per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by
Doppler shift, the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was
reduced. UNQUOTE

In the above quote concerning Nasa's Titan data test it is seen that the
carrier frequency and the digital data frequency displayed a Doppler effect.
If that same transmitter was parked on Jupiter's north pole you would see a
repeat of Roemer's data during Earth's orbital trip. In Io's case you have a
light train modulated by eclipse events, and in the radio case you have a
radio carrier modulated by digital data.
You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the
speed of the radio carrier.

The graphs of frequency and period of Io's eclipse events displays the
Doppler effect in direct proportion to the relative motion between the Earth
and Jupiter, therefore the light train speed relative to Earth changes at
the same rate. A detailed description of the Doppler effect is available on
the web at the URL

http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html

http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html

Cheers, Stan Byers

Web site atricle "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" at URL

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11


Michael Varney

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 9:50:06 PM1/30/06
to
Stan Byers wrote:
> Hello Light Speed Investigators,

Hello crackpot.

Bill Hobba

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 10:07:41 PM1/30/06
to

"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v9OdnVkmr54...@comcast.com...

>
> Hello Light Speed Investigators,
>
> It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
> article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded
> the
> main argument.

Correct. The speed of light being constant has nothing to do with modern
treatments of relatiivty. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.

If the speed of light was ever found not to be constant in an inertial frame
then such may not affect SR in the slightest since it is a theory about
space-time geometry - not light.

Rest snipped

Bill


Hexenmeister

unread,
Jan 30, 2006, 11:27:28 PM1/30/06
to

"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v9OdnVkmr54...@comcast.com...
>
> Hello Light Speed Investigators,
>
> It appears that in building the Light Speed versus Special Relativity
> article for the web, too many bells and whistles were added that clouded
> the
> main argument.

Of course.

> The one and lonely single fact that has to be recognized to prove that
> light
> speed is not constant to all observers is the "1003 second delay" as
> discovered by Roemer circa 1676.

It's more than that now.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

The stupidity of SR is Einstein's assumption 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c.
For units of c = 1,
1 - 1 = c.
Androcles.

ave...@verizon.net

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 1:35:28 AM1/31/06
to
How in the hell can you read an article when half of it is obliterated
by SPONERED LINKS?

Hexenmeister

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 3:01:01 AM1/31/06
to

<ave...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1138689328.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> How in the hell can you read an article when half of it is obliterated
> by SPONERED LINKS?

Use a different newsreader such as Outlook Express instead.

Androcles.


Sue...

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 4:47:14 AM1/31/06
to

If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.

I think you'll find the possibily of a space-time continuum
is only *suggested* in SR with a caveat about the imaginary
operator. It is in GR where the caveat is ignored in increasing
the number of sides of a polygon to form a circle.

Sue...

>
> Rest snipped
>
> Bill

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 3:03:46 PM1/31/06
to
Stan Byers wrote:
> When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
> speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed timing
> of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed of
> the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain in
> timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
> were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for Roemer
> to record.

You are assuming light's speed is _infinite_. That is manifestly not so.

The earth's orbit is roughly 1000 light seconds in diameter, and the
accumulated delay comes from the fact that the light must traverse that
diameter.

IOW: this is not any sort of "time dilation", this is simply the fact
that it takes light roughly 1000 seconds longer to reach the earth when
earth is furthest from Jupiter than it takes when earth is closest to
Jupiter. This difference _IS_ what Roemer used to compute the speed of
light.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Hexenmeister

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 4:13:36 PM1/31/06
to

"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:drofr4$i...@netnews.net.lucent.com...

> Stan Byers wrote:
>> When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
>> speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth the observed
>> timing
>> of Io's period would not change,...regardless of the longitudinal speed
>> of
>> the Earth relative to Jupiter. All succeeding eclipse events would remain
>> in
>> timing synchronism with the events as observed at the near point. If this
>> were true there would have been no 1003 second accumulated delay for
>> Roemer
>> to record.
>
> You are assuming light's speed is _infinite_.

Hey, shithead!

"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." -- Einstein.


> That is manifestly not so.

That's right, shithead. The basis of relativity is manifestly not so.

> The earth's orbit is roughly 1000 light seconds in diameter, and the
> accumulated delay comes from the fact that the light must traverse that
> diameter.
>
> IOW: this is not any sort of "time dilation", this is simply the fact that
> it takes light roughly 1000 seconds longer to reach the earth when earth
> is furthest from Jupiter than it takes when earth is closest to Jupiter.
> This difference _IS_ what Roemer used to compute the speed of light.


Right, so you've just proven Einstein was wrong, shithead.
"We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot
be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time''
required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to
travel from B to A. " -- Einstein.

Roberts responds:
TIME doesn't mean time. OBSERVATION doesn't mean observation.
DEFINITION doesn't mean definition. PROOF doesn't mean proof.
SHITHEAD doesn't mean shithead.

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black holes"
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:OiWxf.694
"But, of course, my description was about physical observables, not
coordinate systems."

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:13:12 GMT
Local: Sun, Nov 20 2005 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity, Translation
"Amateurs look at data, professionals look at errorbars.
That page completely ignores the many modern measurements, which VASTLY
smaller errorbars, that all show the constancy of the speed of light in many
different situations."

Baez crackpot index:

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with
defective keyboards).

I have asked "Dr." Roberts for the right ascension and declination of this
mythical accretion disk near a black hole on several occasions, but he has
declined to provide the data.

"I am not an
astronomer" -- Roberts.

but a few minutes with google "black hole accretion disk"
will show you that there are indeed many such observations. --Roberts

"There is a
very large literature on this topic (see any astrophysics or astronomy
journal of the past decade), including textbooks and conference
proceedings galore (e.g. go to amazon.com and search for "black hole
accretion")" --Roberts.

Shithead Roberts gets his data from amazon.com and google.com

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Androcles.


> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com


Eric Gisse

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 4:53:38 PM1/31/06
to

Hexenmeister wrote:

[snip]

You are daft.

But please, keep being abusive. In fact, be more abusive - threaten his
life. The more abuse, the faster we can be rid of you.

Mike

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 5:32:20 PM1/31/06
to

Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
constant in all inertial FoRs.

If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, Minkowski spacetime geometry is
not valid any longer, but some other theory since Einstein's SR was
formulated explicitely based on the contancy of the speed of light in
all inertial reference frames. Maybe should be called Alternative
Relativity or Genuing Relativity but not Special Relativity.

By the way, if c is not constant in all inertial FoR. Minkowski
spacetime geometry is not valid any longer and since you DO NOT know
how the speed may vary, if it does indeed, you DO NOT know what kind of
spacetime geometry you are talking about ALTHOUGH you seem prety
relaxed to insist that SR is a theory about spacetime geometry.

Mike

>
> Rest snipped
>
> Bill

Tom Roberts

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 6:03:00 PM1/31/06
to
Mike wrote:
> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
> constant in all inertial FoRs.

That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.

IOW: if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
(i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations
and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability
would be reduced).


> If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]

Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates are used to
derive the same set of theorems. The interpretations, of course, are
unchanged. Same theorems and same interpretations => same theory.

IOW: physics is not locked in a time warp at 1905.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 6:09:31 PM1/31/06
to
In article <droqb5$k...@netnews.net.lucent.com>, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
>Mike wrote:
>> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
>> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
>> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
>> constant in all inertial FoRs.
>
>That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
>avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
>Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
>Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
>implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
>considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
>have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>
My take on this is "It is not that c is the speed of light, rather
then the speed of light appears to equal c".

Yes, I know I wrote it before. My apologies:-)

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Mike

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 6:33:20 PM1/31/06
to


Am I free to call the "same theory" then Robert's Relativity, or RR,
rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong? I mean if that
turns out to be the case.

It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR
if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
Einstein right in his postulates. .

I mean, is it correct to continue giving credit to someone if his
theory is falsified when it is known that the alternative theories
existed long ago or even before him. The major selling point of SR was
that c is constant in all inertial FoR. I understand some have equated
Relativity, in general, with SR but as you know this is not correct.

I get the feeling that SRians are sensing their time is up and struggle
to:

1. claim SR was not falsified by naming the new theory SR (really
stupid move)
2. assert that the new theory is Einstein's theory (which is not)

This is not equivalent to Newton followed by Einstein's extension. If c
is variable, Einstein is falsified whereas Newton was never falsified
but only limited in his applicability.

Mike


>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Stan Byers

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 10:55:08 PM1/31/06
to
Hello Tom and Group,

Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
argument.

When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.
Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated as
shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency of
the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect. At
this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers of
the Io's events.

Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to the
source. This is not reality.

Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating, this
can only occur if the speed of light is infinite. It is also true that "if"
the speed of light remains constant for observers with changing motion in
relation to the source,...the frequency and periods and event time
synchronism transmitted by the light will also remain constant. Therefore
there would not be an accumulated delay of 1003 seconds.

Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.

The speed of light changes relative to the observer in direct proportion to
the observers longitudinal motion relative to the source.

Tom, I do hope the above content will help settle the issue in your mind.
However, I do not expect that all readers will understand my explanation of
Roemer's data. Tom if you cannot understand and agree with this above
argument and conclusion I respectfully suggest that you review and discuss
the Jupiter Io scenario with one of your "non" relativistic colleagues.

If you decide the 1003 seconds of Roemer's delay is real, then basic
arithmetic shows that you have to accept that Special Relativity is false.
There can only be one correct answer.

Even when relativistic science dilates time, warps space and shrinks
rulers,...Roemer's 1003 second delay still exists. Out damn spot!

The JPL Nasa Data problem provided at the web
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6
presents a second example that the speed of radiation does not remain
constant relative to all observers.

Cheers, Stan Byers

"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:drofr4$i...@netnews.net.lucent.com...

Sam Wormley

unread,
Jan 31, 2006, 11:57:38 PM1/31/06
to
Stan Byers wrote:
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
> argument.
>


Stan, I think you are missing the basic geometry of Roemer's observation.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Roemer.html

Hexenmeister

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 1:09:23 AM2/1/06
to

"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:droqb5$k...@netnews.net.lucent.com...

> Mike wrote:
>> Unfortunately, you should know that this is not true, the spacetime
>> geometry of SR depends on the speed of light constancy, since c is
>> included in the metric in a special way, i.e. after assuming that it is
>> constant in all inertial FoRs.
>
> That was true in Einstein's original derivation, but modern derivations
> avoid this. It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
> Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
> Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
> implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however, considerable
> experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol have the same
> numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>
> IOW: if it is ultimately discovered [...]

>> If c varies, it is not Einstein's SR, [...]
>
> Sure it is. It's just that a different set of postulates [...]

> locked in a time warp at 1905.
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

IOW: Roberts is a totally deranged self-contradictory psychotic shithead.

Androcles.


Hexenmeister

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 1:47:38 AM2/1/06
to

"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iqWdnQ9FgbO...@comcast.com...

> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding
> the argument.

Roberts is a totally deranged shithead. <shrug>


>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter
> the normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun
> line will be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun
> dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated
> as shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency
> of the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect.
> At this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers
> of the Io's events.

Forget about Io for a moment. Ask Cassini the time.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm


>
> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to
> the source. This is not reality.
>
> Now quite logically

Logically? You want Roberts to think logically?
Asking the Pope if there is a God has a better probability of success.


"if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating,
> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.

According to the Holy Mosque of Relativity, First Book of Einstein, Chapter
4, Verse 4,
Reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great

velocity." -- Praise be to the Lord Einstein.

Einstein said it, Roberts believes it, that settles it. Roberts isn't the
first and he won't be the last bigot on Earth, get used to it. Wht makes you
think logic will have any effect on a bigot?

> It is also true that "if" the speed of light remains constant for
> observers with changing motion in relation to the source,...the frequency
> and periods and event time synchronism transmitted by the light will also
> remain constant.


In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"


> Therefore there would not be an accumulated delay of 1003 seconds.
>
> Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
> show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
> postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.
>
> The speed of light changes relative to the observer in direct proportion
> to the observers longitudinal motion relative to the source.
>
> Tom, I do hope the above content will help settle the issue in your mind.
> However, I do not expect that all readers will understand my explanation
> of Roemer's data. Tom if you cannot understand and agree with this above
> argument and conclusion I respectfully suggest that you review and discuss
> the Jupiter Io scenario with one of your "non" relativistic colleagues.
>
> If you decide the 1003 seconds of Roemer's delay is real, then basic
> arithmetic shows that you have to accept that Special Relativity is false.
> There can only be one correct answer.
>
> Even when relativistic science dilates time, warps space and shrinks
> rulers,...Roemer's 1003 second delay still exists. Out damn spot!
>
> The JPL Nasa Data problem provided at the web
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1547/6
> presents a second example that the speed of radiation does not remain
> constant relative to all observers.

Stop being Mr. Nice Guy and report Roberts's bigotry to Lucent Technologies.
I have. Fraud should be exposed and prosecuted, or Lucent will be soon be
facing the same exposure as Alenia Spazio SpA.

Androcles.

Mike

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 2:41:00 AM2/1/06
to


"Roberts is self-contradictory" suffices and tells it all.

The word "psychotic" is reserved for Drooten van der Moortal.

The one who is deranged is you.

Take it easy and try to find strong arguments against the idiots if you
want to succeed. You fall into the trap of arguing and making strong ad
hominen attacks. You are alone and they are many. You always lose, not
because you are wrong but because they are the majority.

Einstein's Relativity is the easiest thing to rebut but any rebutal
makes sense only if there is an agreement from the other side on what
constitutes a rebutal. As you see, in the past they claimed fearcly c
is inavriant. Now, when they have strong experimental evidence c is
source dependent, they claim they do not need the invariance and SR is
a theory about the geometry of spacetime. You cannot deal with this
kind of people in normal ways. These people are conspiring to maintain
a certain status quo in physics.

Mike


>
> Androcles.

Bill Hobba

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 6:49:53 AM2/1/06
to

"Stan Byers" <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iqWdnQ9FgbO...@comcast.com...
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding
> the argument.
>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter
> the normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun
> line will be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun
> dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated
> as shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency
> of the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect.
> At this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers
> of the Io's events.
>
> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to
> the source. This is not reality.
>
> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating,
> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.

Mind elaborating on that? I fail to see its logic.

Bill

Mahmoud In My Dinner Jacket

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 7:28:50 AM2/1/06
to
> Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2

The other day, I myself saw the speed of light go up to relativity and
give it the Alex Harvey!

Gregory L. Hansen

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 12:26:13 PM2/1/06
to
In article <1138750400.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

Do you mean a variable speed of light in vacuum, or a variable invariant
speed?

--
"The hardest conviction to get into the mind of the beginner is that the
education he is receiving in college is not a medical course but a life
course for which the work of a few years under teachers is but a
preparation." -- Sir William Osler

Stan Byers

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 1:06:08 PM2/1/06
to
Hello Bill and Light Speed Investigators,

Thanks for the response Bill, clarifying issues in question may aid many
readers.

Quotes follow://////////////////////

Stan >> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a

stationary
>> Earth observer and "remained constant" as the observer starts retreating,
>> this can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.
>

Bill> Mind elaborating on that? I fail to see its logic.

Unquote //////////////////////

When the Earth is at rest relative to Jupiter observers will see a period
for Io's orbit that is the same for all observers that are stationary
relative to Jupiter. When the Earth starts retreating from Jupiter,..."if"
the light speed stayed the same relative to the observer all events would
appear that the observer had not retreated. All Io events would remain in
exact timing synchronism with the events observed when the Earth was
stationary in relation to Jupiter.

We all know that the ball goes past the pitcher before it gets to third
base. Yet SR says that the ball will get to third base and the pitcher at
the same time. The ball would have to have magic infinite velocity between
the pitcher's mound and third base.

I am sure there are others on this thread that can provide a scenario that
gives a better explanation, especially for countries that do not play
baseball. ;~)

Without an understanding of this concept readers will not be able to clearly
see the argument between Roemer's 1003 second delay in Io's synchronism and
SR's second postulate.

Cheers, Stan Byers

"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:Bf1Ef.232999$V7.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

ste...@nomail.com

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 2:26:56 PM2/1/06
to

> Quotes follow://////////////////////

> Unquote //////////////////////

I do not know what sort of baseball you are playing, but a ball
that goes to third base does not go past the pitcher. That would require
the ball to go in two different directions. A ball that reaches third base
will not go past the pitcher, and vice versa. The pitcher is closer to home
than third base is to home, so if two balls leave home plate at
the same time, travelling at the same speed, and one is headed
towards the pitcher, and the other towards third base, then
the ball heading towards the pitcher will reach the pitcher
before the ball heading towards third base reaches third base.
The same is true of light. I have no idea why you think SR
would predict that light must travel unequal distances in the
same amount of time.

> Without an understanding of this concept readers will not be able to clearly
> see the argument between Roemer's 1003 second delay in Io's synchronism and
> SR's second postulate.

You really do not seem to understand basic physics, let alone
relativity.

Stephen

Stan Byers

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 4:57:49 PM2/1/06
to
Hello Stephen and Group,

Thanks for the correction,...but don't they have curve balls?
Or the computer could have made a typo.
Or digitally,...2nd base is the third bag.

But yes, this could be my second mistrake.

My first mistrake occurrred once upon a time when I thought
I was rong,....but as usual,...I was write. ;~)

Cheers, Stan Byers

For "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" see URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

<ste...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:drr220$cf3$1...@news.msu.edu...

snip

ste...@nomail.com

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 5:23:43 PM2/1/06
to
In sci.physics.relativity Stan Byers <sbye...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hello Stephen and Group,

> Thanks for the correction,...but don't they have curve balls?
> Or the computer could have made a typo.
> Or digitally,...2nd base is the third bag.

That still makes no sense.

If you honestly think that SR predicts that
light must cover unequal distances in the
same amount of time then you simply have
no understanding of SR.

> But yes, this could be my second mistrake.

At least.

Stephen

Russell

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 5:37:56 PM2/1/06
to
Followups trimmed to sci.physics.relativity

Stan Byers wrote:
> Hello Tom and Group,
>
> Thanks for the response. Tom, it is clear that you are misunderstanding the
> argument.
>
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
> normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
> be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.

I'm guessing this is the basis of your strange idea that Earth
dwellers and Sun dwellers see the crossing at the same
time.

But think a minute. The above statement says nothing about
*when* the crossings are observed; rather, it talks about the
length of time *between* successive observations. (Aka the
"period".) If I clap my hands twice, with a period of 1 sec
between them, a person 1 mile away will hear the claps
5 seconds later than I do, but the *period* between the two
claps will still be 1 second for that observer too. It's similar
for light.

[snip rest]

Mike

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 6:39:38 PM2/1/06
to

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:

>
> Do you mean a variable speed of light in vacuum, or a variable invariant
> speed?
>

He strikes again...

Neither. I mean one way light speed in vacuum that depends on the
source or observer speed.

Mike

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 10:12:51 PM2/1/06
to
Mike wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> It is true there is a confusion: we denote the constant in
>> Maxwell's equations as "c", and we denote the invariant speed in the
>> Lorentz transform as "c" -- this confusion is historical and no longer
>> implies they are really "the same thing"; there is, however,
>> considerable experimental evidence that these two usages of that symbol
>> have the same numerical value to incredible accuracy.
>>
>> IOW: if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass
>> (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the
>> Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations
>> and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability
>> would be reduced).
>
> Am I free to call the "same theory" then Robert's Relativity, or RR,
> rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong? I mean if that
> turns out to be the case.

What I described is known by all physicists _today_ as SR. There are
differences in derivation from that in Einstein's original 1905 paper,
but those are not sufficient to warrant a different name. We have
_learned_ a thing or three since 1905. <shrug>


> It must be obvious that if this turns out to be the case, Einstein was
> wrong. A variable c implies a much different world than suggested by SR

Which meaning of "c"???? -- see above. If in the speed of light, this
would merely indicate a falsification of Maxwell's equations and QED,
not SR.


> if one wants to look at the theory from a law-like perspective. But
> even from the model-like perspective, the new theory would falsify
> Einstein right in his postulates.

Sure. But the theory known as SR _today_ would remain.


> I mean, is it correct to continue giving credit to someone if his
> theory is falsified

You omitted the subjunctive mood; no such falsification has occurred.


> I get the feeling that SRians are sensing their time is up and struggle
> to:

No, you just do not understand either SR or how science is performed.
While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 10:28:58 PM2/1/06
to
Stan Byers wrote:
> When the Earth has no closing or retreating speed in relation to Jupiter the
> normal period of Io's successive crossings of Jupiter's zenith Sun line will
> be observed. The same period will also be observed by Sun dwellers.
> Now when the Earth retreats from Jupiter the observed period is elongated as
> shown by the charts. This is due to the change of period and frequency of
> the Io events as is predicted for all radiation by the Doppler effect. At
> this time in the scenario, Earthlings are classed as a moving observers of
> the Io's events.

You are confusing "Io's period" with "the period between Io's successive
zeniths AS OBSERVED ON EARTH". Your failure to make this distinction
seems to be profoundly confusing you.


> Now the second postulate of Special Relativity states that the speed of
> light is constant for all observers, moving or stationary in relation to the
> source. This is not reality.

No, it's just that this is _irrelevant_ here.

For this situation, you cannot consider the earth to be at rest in an
inertial frame for the time period between Io's successive zeniths (the
earth is in a ~circular orbit around the sun). The only useful inertial
frame here is that in which the sun is at rest (or rather, the
barycenter of the solar system, a distinction I will ignore for simplicity).


> Now quite logically "if" the speed of light were constant for a stationary
> Earth observer and remained constant as the observer starts retreating, this
> can only occur if the speed of light is infinite.

I repeat: you are confused. The constancy of the speed of light is valid
_only_ in an inertial frame, and for the situation you are trying to
consider the earth is _not_ at rest in an inertial frame -- its orbit is
an _ellipse_, not a straight line.


> Roemer's 1003 second delay and the curves presented on the URL
> http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
> show that the speed of light is "not" infinite,...therefore the second
> postulate of Special Relativity is impossible,...There is no other option.

Yes, there is another option: your argument is wrong. <shrug>


All you need to do is apply SR in the inertial frame in which the sun is
at rest. The 1003 seconds is clearly the time it takes light to cross
the diameter of the earth's orbit (ignoring the comparatively small
motion of Jupiter during 6 months). By golly that gives a measure of the
speed of light reasonably close to the accepted value, and the
difference is well within the accuracy of Roemer's method.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Paul Cardinale

unread,
Feb 1, 2006, 10:44:20 PM2/1/06
to

Stan Byers wrote:

[snip]

> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from the
> speed of the radio carrier.
>

Of course you can. You don't understand anything about the Doppler
shift.

Paul Cardinale

brian a m stuckless

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 4:07:37 AM2/2/06
to
$$ UN-Einstein (Ph.T-coup-GR) SR-2 ..the SEQUEL:
Tom Roberts wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > Tom Roberts wrote: -=-

> > Am I free to call the "same theory" then Robert's Relativity, or RR,
> > rather than Eisntein's SR and declare Einstein wrong?
-=-

> What I described is known by all physicists _today_ as SR. There are
> differences in derivation from that in Einstein's original 1905 paper,
> but those are not sufficient to warrant a different name. We have
> _learned_ a thing or three since 1905. <shrug>
-=-

> While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
> used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
> Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
> not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>

$$ SR-2 the SEQUEL (Ph.T-coup-GR SR).
A followup to a DRAMA (SR) is a SEQUEL (SR2) ..NOT the "SAME name".
We have AUTHENTiC (Einstein) SR and we have corrupted Ph.T coup SR.
We have AUTHENTiC (Einstein) GR and we have corrupted Ph.T coup GR.
Don't CHANGE a theory and SAY it HAS the SAME name and author, duh.
Say, "Ph.T-coup-GR SR" ..or simply "SR-2". ```Brian.

>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2.
Re: SR-2 the SEQUEL (Ph.T-coup-GR SR).


Mike

unread,
Feb 2, 2006, 7:41:23 PM2/2/06
to

Tom Roberts wrote:

[snip apologies]

>
> No, you just do not understand either SR or how science is performed.

Change "you" to "I' and you have the correct statement.


> While we may use a different derivation for SR than Einstein originally
> used, we still call it "Special Relativity" and attribute the theory to
> Einstein, because that's how such attributions are done. IOW: science is
> not frozen in time in 1905. <shrug>

No, actually it is you who falls continuously into the same trap. A
true scientist would reply that he does not care to whom the theory is
attributed as long as it is valid. You keep insisting attribution of a
theory that has changed remarkably to the same man that was wrong and
this proves that your motives are beyond science, you have a specific
agenda to promote.

Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
you can do that prove it wrong. An example is the outright
falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
the fact that the charge does not radiate.

The POR together with causality invariance satisfy both Galilean and
Lorentz transforms (with some value of c) between inertial FoR.
Einstein arbitrarily fixed c with his second postulate so that SR has
the relativity of the general Lorentz group. If c is infinity, as in
the case of source dependent c, then there is absolute time because the
relativity of the galilean group applies. Thus, the concept of
relativity is not invalidated, it is Einstein that is invalidated and
there is no way in the world that we can keep calling SR a relativity
theory with c source dependent and attribute it to Einstein.

Einsteinian Relativity, both SR/GR, seem to have been the outcome of
distorted views of reality, which have penetrated and corrupted the
whole scientific establishement to the degree that its situation seem
irreversible at the moment. There are many Tom Roberts around who will
go out of their way to convince people that there are wormholes,
blackholes, even gravity waves that despite the billion sspent were
never detected.

Mike


>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Stan Byers

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 1:15:01 AM2/3/06
to
Hello Paul and Group,

Thanks for taking the time to read the post. It does seem that there
remains some misunderstanding of the message.

Stan>> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits

from the
>> speed of the radio carrier.

//////////////////////////

Paul>>> Of course you can. You don't understand anything about the Doppler
> shift.
////////////////////////////

The point I am trying to make clear is that images and data and information
travel through space and atmospheres at the same speed of their carriers.
Whether the carriers are light or radio waves. The information cannot travel
any faster or slower than the carrier.

If you have knowledge of examples where this is not true a link or citation
providing the data will be appreciated. The web paper "Light Speed versus
Special Relativity" provides
a detailed example where the images from Io travel at the same speed as the
light transmitting the images.

The following from the paper may help clarify the concept.

When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed
that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact
many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure
the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images
transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light
beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical
phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse
events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images
travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler
effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be an
identical Doppler effect for events or digital information,.. and visa
versa. It is necessary that this mutual relationship, between these two
Doppler phenomena,...is clear to the reader for understanding the main
argument of this paper.

I do hope this clarifies the concept at issue.

A review of the complete paper "Light Speed versus Special Relativity" may
provide more insight to the issues. URL
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

Cheers, Stan Byers

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:1138851860.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


>
> Stan Byers wrote:
> [snip]
>> You cannot separate the speed and timing of the digital data bits from
>> the
>> speed of the radio carrier.

>////////////////////////

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 1:49:31 AM2/3/06
to
Mike wrote:
> Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
> you can do that prove it wrong.

Except that no reliable and reproducible experiment has ever actually
managed to do that. And there have been _a_lot_ of attempts.

Need I point out that your _guesses_ do not count? Physics is an
_experimental_ science, not a guessing game.


> An example is the outright
> falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
> surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
> laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
> talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
> the fact that the charge does not radiate.

Your _guesses_ and conclusion are wrong: an actual computation in GR
shows that indeed such a charge does not radiate to a detector that is
also fixed to the surface of the earth, but does radiate to a detector
in freefall. Unfortunately, current technology is not sensitive enough
to actually measure this to test the GR prediction.

Your basic error is trying to discuss "radiation" in the abstract --
discuss _actual_measurements_ and you'll avoid this error. So describe
what a given detector will measure, not whether or not "radiation" is
present.


> The POR together with causality invariance satisfy both Galilean and
> Lorentz transforms (with some value of c) between inertial FoR.
> Einstein arbitrarily fixed c with his second postulate so that SR has
> the relativity of the general Lorentz group. If c is infinity, as in
> the case of source dependent c, then there is absolute time because the
> relativity of the galilean group applies.

Except that your _guesses_ simply do not apply to the world we inhabit.
The invariant velocity c of the Lorentz group, in the world we actually
do inhabit, is _observed_ to be the same as the speed of light to within
fantastic accuracy. The Galilean group is soundly refuted experimentally.


> [... further embellishment of the above errors]


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Mike

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 2:54:36 AM2/3/06
to

Tom Roberts wrote:

[snip]

>
> Your _guesses_ and conclusion are wrong: an actual computation in GR
> shows that indeed such a charge does not radiate to a detector that is
> also fixed to the surface of the earth, but does radiate to a detector
> in freefall. Unfortunately, current technology is not sensitive enough
> to actually measure this to test the GR prediction.
>

...and your message was detected by me on the surface of the earth but
not by a free falling astronaut since his current web browser
technology cannot detect it yet.

unfortunately, I do not expect you to be ashamed for the things you
claim. All crackpots and cranks, fraudelent scientists and the like,
when refuted will cry that the technology is not advanced enough to
detect their predictions.

Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge
conservation and actually this is another paradox of GR like the twin
paradox of SR. Anything you attempt to do will not resolve the paradox
because it reveals the inconsistency between mathematical statements
like th POR and the way the world operates. Whilst GR and SR maybe
mathematically consistent, they are physically inconsistent and it
turns out, all experimental work is done in relation to the
mathematical consistence whereas the physical inconsistence part is
ignored.

Listen to this once more and stop being ridiculous. A charge cannot
radiate wrt to one observer and not wrt to another. You are making a
fool of yourself and demonstrate irreversibly you do not have a concept
of physics.

Mike

>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

dej4

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 4:09:28 AM2/3/06
to

...
>
> Neither. I mean one way light speed in vacuum that depends on the
> source or observer speed.
>
> Mike

You can assume such a thing by absurd, apply the Ives-Stilwell
experiment to it and you will get a contradiction. So it does not
exist.

Plonk.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:06:34 AM2/3/06
to
Mike wrote:
> Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
> observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge
> conservation

This is simply not true. Radiation is not charge. <shrug>


> A charge cannot
> radiate wrt to one observer and not wrt to another.

Sure it can. Maxwell's equations and QED both say an inertial charge
_must_ radiate differently into two detectors, when one is unaccelerated
and the other is accelerated nonuniformly. <shrug>

I cannot help it if you don't like this _mathematical_ result -- it is
_absolutely_required_ for consistency in the Maxwell's equations (and QED).

And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.


I repeat: don't attempt to discuss "radiation" in the abstract, as that
is rather wishy-washy. Instead, discuss what specific detectors will
detect. That way you discuss a measurement, and all issues of different
coordinates disappear.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Autymn D. C.

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 2:27:38 PM2/3/06
to
Mike wrote:
> Relativity is all together wrong because there are so many experiments
> you can do that prove it wrong. An example is the outright

nope

> falsification of GR EP by just considering a charge at rest on the
> surface of the earth and a free falling laboratory. Wrt to the
> laboratory, the charge should radiate, but it does not. Now, all the
> talk about limiting regions of spacetime and local Ep will NOT CHANGE
> the fact that the charge does not radiate.

Acceleration from gravity or electricity or whatever needs motion, as
it comes from the restoring force.

> Charge is an invariant qunantity and it cannot radiate wrt to one
> observer and not wrt to another since this will violate charge

> conservation and actually this is another paradox of GR like the twin
> paradox of SR. Anything you attempt to do will not resolve the paradox
> because it reveals the inconsistency between mathematical statements
> like th POR and the way the world operates. Whilst GR and SR maybe

may be


> mathematically consistent, they are physically inconsistent and it
> turns out, all experimental work is done in relation to the
> mathematical consistence whereas the physical inconsistence part is
> ignored.

Charge is not energy, shithead. Only your mind is inconsistent with
fusics, and you toflunked my credibility test:
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/10b82e2222cc6105/82c95a1dff6f9ded#82c95a1dff6f9ded>.

Autymn D. C.

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 2:27:56 PM2/3/06
to
Stan Byers wrote:
> When a light beam is interrupted by a toothed wheel, it is never assumed
> that the dark sections do not travel at the same speed as the light. In fact

You pulled this out of your arse. Dark is not liht, and neither are
many signals one signal.

> many light speed experiments use this obvious physical phenomenon to measure
> the speed of light. With the same reasoning it appears obvious that images
> transported by a light beam have to travel at the same speed as the light

signals, not images

> beam. Movie projectors provide examples of the application of this physical
> phenomenon. When this reasoning is applied to the images of Io's eclipse
> events, it does not seem possible to question the fact that the event images
> travel at the same speed as their constituent light. If there is a Doppler
> effect for the frequency of the light, there will also have to be an
> identical Doppler effect for events or digital information,.. and visa

vice

Tom Ring

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:07:15 PM2/3/06
to
Hexenmeister wrote:

> Shithead Roberts gets his data from amazon.com and google.com
>

A reasonable discussion does not include the word "shithead". Go back
to grade school kid.

tom
K0TAR


Tom Ring

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:09:03 PM2/3/06
to
Hexenmeister wrote:

> Roberts is a totally deranged shithead. <shrug>
>

And you have a hopelessly limited vocabulary.

tom
K0TAR


Tom Ring

unread,
Feb 3, 2006, 10:10:50 PM2/3/06
to

Have you ever wondered why almost no one responds to your babble?

brian a m stuckless

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 3:32:11 AM2/4/06
to

Why did you?

Mike

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 5:48:36 AM2/4/06
to

Autymn D. C. wrote:

> Charge is not energy, shithead. Only your mind is inconsistent with
> fusics, and you toflunked my credibility test:


Go ahead and teach us fusics while we teach you physics, incompetent
crank who never studied physics. Nobody gives a flying phulk about any
test of yours, go to a college first and pass physics 101 and then come
back to lick our uss idiot.

Mike

Mike

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 5:56:53 AM2/4/06
to

Tom Roberts wrote:


> And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
> this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.
>

"I am sorry I cannot prove to you right now unicrons exist, I am sure
my theory about unicorns is correct, I blame it on technology, but
please keep believing in unicorns until I will be able to prove their
existence because my math says so."

Isn't something like that you are asking the society to do Dr. Roberts?
On thhave now contrary, the technology is sufficient at this point and
your theory has been falsified.

Since I have now evidence from your postings here that you have the
nerve to appeal to unobvservable phenomena to justify your dogmatic
beliefs, and as a pragmatic person I find this behavior
incomprehensible and even suspicious, I give you the ROYAL:

PLONK


Mike


>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 6:00:54 AM2/4/06
to

"Mike"
aka Bill Smith
aka Eleatis
aka Undeniable
<ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1139050613.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

So you can start "hidding behind your own ratten fingure":
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RattenFingure.html
:-)

Dirk Vdm


Tom Roberts

unread,
Feb 4, 2006, 11:32:49 AM2/4/06
to
Mike wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> And I cannot help it that current technology is insufficient to measure
>> this predicted phenomenon and remove all doubts.
>>
> "I am sorry I cannot prove to you right now unicrons exist, I am sure
> my theory about unicorns is correct, I blame it on technology, but
> please keep believing in unicorns until I will be able to prove their
> existence because my math says so."
>
> Isn't something like that you are asking the society to do Dr. Roberts?

No. Not at all. Because your unicorns have _never_ been observed.

The situation is this: We have a self-consistent theory of gravitation
and electrodynamics that together describe literally thousands of
measurements and experiments that have been performed, and no
reproducible experiment or measurement has ever been found to be
significantly different from the predictions of this theory. It's just
that the _specific_ measurement you ask for is beyond our current
capabilities, so all we have are theoretical computations, not real
measurements.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Tom Ring

unread,
Feb 5, 2006, 8:31:07 PM2/5/06
to
brian a m stuckless wrote:

>>
>>Have you ever wondered why almost no one responds to your babble?
>
>
> Why did you?
>

I did not respond, I asked a question, dimwit.

Tom

brian a m stuckless

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 3:21:01 AM2/6/06
to

Feel free to respond, when you're READY, Tom.
$$ This is NOT a reply. ```Brian.

brian a m stuckless

unread,
Feb 6, 2006, 3:39:08 AM2/6/06
to

Feel free to respond, when you're READY, Tom.


$$ This is NOT a reply. ```Brian.

Re: Light Speed refutes Special Relativity 2.
Re: This is NOT a reply, Tom.


Autymn D. C.

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:32:25 AM2/13/06
to

Autymn D. C.

unread,
Feb 13, 2006, 1:33:24 AM2/13/06
to
Tom Ring wrote:
> I did not respond, I asked a question, dimwit.
respond;

Rock Brentwood

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 6:17:15 AM2/16/06
to
Sue... wrote:
> If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
> by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.

As eveyrone knows, that's backwards: the Twin Paradox is a paradox of
*Newtonian* spacetime, not Minkowski spacetime; since the contradiction
that ensues from the paradox is a contradiction of one of the central
assumptions of Galilean Relativity (absolute simultaneity), which is
absent in Poincare' Relativity, not any of Poincare' Relativity! It's
not a paradox with respect to Poincare' Relativity, since the culprit
assumption (of absolute simultaneity) is absent there.

Hexenmeister

unread,
Feb 16, 2006, 8:21:49 AM2/16/06
to

"Rock Brentwood" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140088635.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Sue... wrote:
>> If SR is about space-time geometry then it is disproprove
>> by the twins paradox as Langevin proposed.
>
> As eveyrone knows, that's backwards:

As everyone knows, bright green flying elephants lay eggs in black holes.
As everyone knows, the Easter bunny steals the eggs.
As everyone knows, that's why there are no bright green flying elephants
left.


> the Twin Paradox is a paradox of
> *Newtonian* spacetime, not Minkowski spacetime; since the contradiction
> that ensues from the paradox is a contradiction of one of the central
> assumptions of Galilean Relativity (absolute simultaneity), which is
> absent in Poincare' Relativity, not any of Poincare' Relativity!

As everyone (except shitwitted relativists) knows simultaneity is not
absent in Nature. Ask Cassini the time.

As everyone knows,
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.

Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Poincare's bubble. --- Pop!

> It's
> not a paradox with respect to Poincare' Relativity, since the culprit
> assumption (of absolute simultaneity) is absent there.

As everyone knows, it is a paradox in mathematics.
As everyone knows, relativists are totally incompetent blustering idiots
and trolls.
Hexenmeister.


Stan Byers

unread,
Jan 31, 2007, 10:43:54 PM1/31/07
to

Greetings, Light Speed Investigators,

This post is an update for the web article "Light Speed versus Special
Relativity"

The article is available on the web address:
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

It will be placed here in sections to avoid large posts and allow text and
link printing.

ABSTRACT Public Domain information: In order to promote the
widest possible distribution of this Light Speed versus Special Relativity
article, the content authored by Stanley Byers is granted to be in the
public domain.

This paper reviews the available speed of light (c) measurements of 1994 AD
that demonstrate speed variations of inter-planetary light as measured
relative to the motion of:... planets, satellites, the solar system, and the
Milky Way galaxy.
The idea that light from a remote source maintains a constant speed (c)
relative to all observers regardless of their differing speeds and
directions, as proposed by the theory of Special Relativity, is shown to be
incompatible with the characteristics of light's speed demonstrated by the
1994 AD data, analysis and charts of Io's eclipse timing.
The one single fact that demonstrates that light speed is not constant to
all observers is the 1003 second delay" in Io's eclipse timing,... as
discovered by Roemer circa 1676 AD.

The given facts in this analysis are:

The light from Jupiter takes 1003 seconds to cross from the near point of
Earth's orbit to the far point at the speed of 300,000 km/sec, (c) in
relation to Jupiter.
It is known that Earth takes about 200 days to make this same trip. The
average retreating speed in relation to Jupiter is 17.361 km/sec.
When two things race between two points at the same time at differing
speeds,...they have a relative speed that is equal to the difference between
the highest and lowest speed. Therefore the average relative speed is
approximately 300,000 minus 17.361 km/sec.
Conclusion:...This relative velocity between the retreating Earth and the
Jupiter/Io light train is not constant at 300,000 km/sec, and therefore
light does not maintain a constant speed (c), relative to all observers, as
postulated by Special Relativity.

The remainder of this paper presents extensive detailed data and graphs
supporting this conclusion, but it can be seen that Roemer's 1003 second
delay in Io's eclipse event timing is the single data point that clearly
demonstrates that it is not possible for the light speed in the intervening
space to be constant at (c) in relation to the retreating Earth,...but of
course it remains constant at (c) in relation to Jupiter.

Roemer, many other astronomers and NASA have established that the eclipse
period of Io in relation to the Sun line to Jupiter is 152,915.9 seconds.
The important point concerning this period is the fact that it does not
vary.
If the Earth could linger at the near point to Jupiter, it could be observed
that Io's timing in crossing the Sun line to Jupiter does not vary over the
years. It would make a very accurate clock for Sun dwellers.

When the Earth starts it's orbit and is leaving the near point,...if the
speed of light remained constant relative to the Earth, then,... the timing
of Io's period as observed from the Earth would not change,...regardless of
the longitudinal speed of the Earth relative to Jupiter.
All succeeding eclipse events observed during movement would remain in
timing synchronism with the events as observed at the stationary near point.

If this were true, then there would have been no 1003 second accumulated
delay for Roemer to record.

If the mechanics of the phrase,...[ if the speed of light remained constant
relative to the Earth, then the observed timing of Io's period would not
change ],... is not completely clear, the reader will not be able to
understand the main argument of this Light Speed versus Special Relative
paper.
A second concept which is also critical to understanding the argument
is,...[ you cannot separate the speed and timing of the eclipse event image
from the speed of the light. ]

Accuracy in measuring the eclipse timing and accuracy in the graphs
demonstrating the changes of the eclipse period timing is not critical nor
required to validate this argument. The single fact that Roemer's 1003
second delay exists,...makes the second postulate of Special Relative
impossible.

This paper is an extension of the work available on the web page "Radiant
Pressure Model of Remote Force" .
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html
A review of the section titled "The Variable Speed of Light" may aid in
perusing this article.
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#VariableSpeedLight

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

Light's Variable Speed Relative to Observers in Motion

In our experience with the speed of sound in air including the Doppler
effect, we have found that the speed of sound through the air is independent
of the relative speed between source and receiver. The speed of sound is
constant only in relation to the homogenous medium, through which it is
traveling. Sound travels as a longitudinal resonance wave within the
physical properties of its medium.

Circa 1676 Olaf Roemer's Io eclipse timing measurements demonstrated that
the speed of light is not infinite. Prior to this discovery it was a popular
belief that light's speed was infinite. Using the eclipse period timing of
Jupiter's moon Io, Roemer found that light took approximately 1000 seconds
to cross the 300 million kilometer diameter of the earth's orbit, indicating
a speed of about 300,000 km/sec. Thereafter it was assumed that
interplanetary light traveled at (c) through a medium of infinitesimal
material particles. This all pervading medium was called the Aether (ether).
The speed of light was assumed to be constant in relation to this material
Aether of space, in the same manner that the speed of sound is constant
relative to its medium. This material Aether was visualized as pervading all
planets, objects and space in its entirety . Therefore it was assumed that
due to the orbital speed of the Earth, that light from space would show a
measurable change in speed depending on the direction of the Earth's motion
through this presumed stationary material "Aether". It also seemed
reasonable that the light speed perpendicular to the direction of the
Earth's motion would always remain at c, ( 300,000 km/sec ).

In ~1887 Michelson and Morley performed a famous experiment where they
compared the speed of local light in the direction of Earth's velocity to
the speed of light transverse to the Earth's motion. They found that the
motion of the Earth had no effect on the velocity of local light,...relative
to the Earth and within its cloak of atmosphere and secondary radiation.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#SecRadiationCloak

The surprising results of this local MMX experiment were widely and
erroneously extrapolated to a belief that all of light, including light
from non local sources in space, also traveled at the constant c,...
"relative to the observing location". In parallel with this development the
theory of Special Relativity was published circa 1905, with main tenets that
included the concept that not only local light, but that all of light in
space,... traveled at c,..." in relation to the observer",...regardless of
the observers velocity in relation to the source. To be continued on the
next post.

The links and URLs used on the web page "Light Speed versus Relativity"
follow:

http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoAppro.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/jupiter2.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/IoEcipChange4.gif
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/CreatMomtm.htm#VariableSpeedLight
http://www.ed.mtu.edu/ED3100/fall04/klwarsin/TheDopplerEffectWhatCausesIt.html
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
http://www.eso.org/outreach/spec-prog/aol/market/experiments/advanced/skills302.html
http://www.amsmeteors.org/mallama/galilean/timings.html
Radiant Pressure Model of Remote Force
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/grav11.htm
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/ForceInteract.htm#InertiaRevised
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2001/cassini_010629.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

To be continued. Comments and rebuttals are welcome.

Stan Byers

***


Stan Byers

unread,
Feb 1, 2007, 3:24:19 PM2/1/07
to
Greetings Light Speed Investigators,

Update of the web article "Light Speed versus Special Relativity"
URL http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/litespd_vs_sr.htm

Continued from previous post on this thread.

Special Relativity Advocates

The following list of Special Relativity Theory advocates is presented to
demonstrate how extensively unfounded "faith" in the "theory" has
propagated through the physical "science" community.

** The following quotes are from the book GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS by the
Committee on Gravitational Physics of the National Research Council and the
National Academy of Science. It is clearly evident by this book that the
Committee on Gravitational Physics is a strong advocate of Special and
General Relativity and is advising that our government should continue
funding research in support of Einstein's theory of relative. Unfortunately
the committee did not publish the dissenting opinions for this study.

Selected QUOTES:

QUOTE 1 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit,
self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in science and
engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to
advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.

GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS Exploring the Structure of Space and Time
Committee on Gravitational Physics

Board on Physics and Astronomy
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council

QUOTE 2 The committee's work was supported by grants from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and
the U.S. Department of Energy.

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn
from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee
responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and
with regard for appropriate balance.

QUOTE 3 II. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PAST DECADE

The theory of gravity proposed by Isaac Newton more than 300 years ago
provides a unified explanation of how objects fall and how planets orbit the
Sun. But Newton's theory is not consistent with Einstein's 1905 principle of
special relativity. In 1915, Einstein proposed a new, relativistic theory of
gravity--general relativity. When gravity is weak ---for example, on Earth
or elsewhere in the solar system---general relativity's corrections to
Newton's theory are tiny. But general relativity also predicts new
strong--gravity phenomena such as gravitational waves, black holes, and the
big bang that are quantitatively and qualitatively different from those
accounted for in Newtonian gravity. Modern gravitational physics focuses on
these new phenomena and on high--precision tests of general relativity.

UN-QUOTE

The book GRAVITATIONAL PHYSICS by the Committee on Gravitational Physics of
the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences,...is
recommended for relativity believers only,... and is available for online
reading, download and purchase via these links:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9680.html
http://books.nap.edu/html/gravitational_physics/


** A quote from Matthew Chalmers' article in Physics World January 2005,
"Five Papers That Shook The World" , provides another view of this Special
Relativity theory.

QUOTE: True to style, Einstein swept away the concept of the ether (which
in any case had not been detected experimentally) in one audacious step. He
postulated that no matter how fast you are moving, light will always appear
to travel at the same velocity:-- the speed of light is a fundamental
constant of nature that cannot be exceeded.
Combined with the requirement that the laws of physics are identical in all
"inertial" (i.e. non-accelerating) frames, Einstein built a completely new
theory of motion that revealed Newtonian mechanics to be an approximation
that only holds at low, everyday speeds. The theory later became known as
the special theory of relativity, - special because it applies only to
non-accelerating frames - and led to the realization that space and time are
intimately linked to one another. UN-QUOTE

** The following quote from Steven Hawking's famous book "A Brief History
of Time", page 20, provides another description of the concepts contained
in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

QUOTE: The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was
called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely
moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton's
laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell's theory
and the speed of light:...all observers should measure the same speed of
light, no matter how fast they are moving. UN-QUOTE

** Britannica's web site provides the following quote about Special
Relativity.

QUOTE: Since he (Einstein) believed in (and experiment confirmed) the
(extended) principle of relativity, which meant that one cannot, by any
means, including the use of light waves, distinguish between two inertial
frames in uniform relative motion, Einstein chose to give up the Galilean
transformations and replaced them with the Lorentz Transformations.
UN-QUOTE

The article containing the above quote may still be available at this URL
link.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=77441


** The Physics FAQ found on the web provides another view listed as
"Special Relativity" ,

QUOTE: It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed
of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:

The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
The speed of light does not vary with time or place.

To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the
observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this
as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show
that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions
about the absolute nature of space and time.

Updated 1997 by Steve Carlip.

Original by Philip Gibbs 1996. UN-QUOTE

The link for the above quote is
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

** The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center's web site
http://www.slac.stanford.edu
provides an educational page
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
which gives the following opinions regarding Special Relativity.

QUOTE: Theoretical Basis for Special Relativity

Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- the
two basic postulates of special relativity:

The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their
relative speeds.
The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated)
frame of reference. This means that t