MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT: LIES AND TRUTH
Pentcho Valev
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
"In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones.
Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car
that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the
approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with
light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c,
toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be
approaching at c, not 2c."
Truth:
In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light. If you are approaching a car that's moving
30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching
car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. So with light. If you are
traveling at the speed of light, designated c where c is the speed of
light relative to the light source, toward a light beam moving
directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at 2c.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Whoever
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5b0cf384-aeb7-4698...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Lies:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
> speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
> second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones.
That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that
conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation. What it
did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
> Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car
> that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the
> approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with
> light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c,
> toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be
> approaching at c, not 2c."
>
> Truth:
>
> In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
> knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
> source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
> emission theory of light.
That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that
conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation. What it
did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
> If you are approaching a car that's moving
> 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching
> car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. So with light. If you are
> traveling at the speed of light, designated c where c is the speed of
> light relative to the light source, toward a light beam moving
> directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at 2c.
Shame that that is refuted by Sagnac. Things would be much simpler if the
universe actually behaved that way. But wedont' get to choose the way the
universe works.
Juan R.
> Lies:
This is truth
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won the
> Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed
> of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per second)
> relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but
> light has this property: if you are approaching a car that's moving 30
> miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car
> appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are
> traveling at the speed of light, designated c, toward a light beam
> moving directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."
>
> Truth:
This is your lie
> In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won the
> Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
> knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
> source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
> emission theory of light. If you are approaching a car that's moving 30
> miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car
> appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. So with light. If you are
> traveling at the speed of light, designated c where c is the speed of
> light relative to the light source, toward a light beam moving directly
> toward you, it appears to be approaching at 2c.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
harry
> Lies:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
> speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
Indeed Newsweek is wrong: M-M did not test for such a hypothesis,
which hypothesis is ambiguous if not misleading. The speed of light
according to them as well as according to SRT is independent of that
of the emitter (wave theory of light); consequently both Michelson and
Einstein stressed that, as measured in a stationary system, the speed
of light is c-v relatively to the moving system (nowadays many people
call that "closing speed").
> Truth:
>
> In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
> knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
> source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by
> Newton's emission theory of light.
[..]
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
That is also a lie: their experiment was perfectly compatible with the
wave theory of light.
Harald
Androcles
"harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:259e90b4-20f8-44a1...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Harald
============================================
What the fuck does a wave theory of light have to do with its speed,
lying moron?
oriel36
"...physicists before Einstein questioned the idea of absolute motion,
absolute space, and absolute time. Yet it was Einstein who took the
ultimate leap, forging that insight into special relativity."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892/page/1
Absolute/relative space is an amazing,if terrible , device by Newton
to bring planetary dynamics within the realm of experimental science
and is a genuine disaster whatever way you look at it however Newton's
absolute/relative time is an idiosyncratic take on the Equation of
Time which references the daily cycle to natural noon,it was perfectly
fine until Flamsteed inverted the references and ultimately led to the
idea of rotation to absolute space/aether and what have you.
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton, Principia
If I were somebody wishing to discover where Newton is getting his
ideas of absolute/relative space and motion from,I would look at what
is probably the second most important astronomical graphic after the
Copernican arrangement,in this case,Kepler's Panis Quadragesimalis -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
Astronomers look at that graphic and see the combined motions of Earth
and Mars,astrologers look at it and see the 'Big Bang' -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.
This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions
of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth,
or the earth about the sun." Newton
http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm
What can I say,Newton's elaborate scheme by exploiting Ra/Dec
conventions is breathtakingin in its audacity and extremely difficult
to detect where its limitations,at least in terms of planetary
dynamics, are notwithstandin that many would like it to remain that
way.
Honestly guys,it is not worth it any longer,far from escaping Newton's
calendar driven clockwork universe,relativity buried guys deeper in it
and with the 'big bang' concept,the local conclusion of the core
astrological framework,there is nowhere left to go.
Uncle Al
>
> Lies:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
> speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
> second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones.
> Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car
> that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the
> approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with
> light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c,
> toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be
> approaching at c, not 2c."
>
> Truth:
1) No aether
http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
<http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf>
2) No Lorentz violation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html>
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
3) idiot
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
An idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Pentcho Valev
Typical reasoning in the era of Postscientism: 2+2=5 is correct, 2+2=4
is correct as well. In fact, in 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment
was consistent with the thesis "The speed of light varies with the
speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
given by Newton's emission theory of light" and inconsistent with the
antithesis "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the
light source". Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized
the reality (introduced length contraction, time dilation etc.) so as
to make the Michelson-Morley experiment inconsistent with the thesis
and consistent with the antithesis. In the end, the antithesis became
"the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
together":
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."
http://www.buy.com/prod/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/q/loc/106/31065101.html
Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one
fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's
speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with
respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the
train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light
flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-
Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always
moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light
ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to
measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same
apparent speed! Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in
part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was
that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That
something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time.
This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives,
space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein
conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing that could flex and
change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of
the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe
that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the
constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of
physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the
notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a
swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics.
Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory
of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the
universe works."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Whoever
Obviously not.
It appears you don't understand scientific method.
> In fact, in 1887, the Michelson-Morley experiment
> was consistent with the thesis "The speed of light varies with the
> speed of the light source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
> given by Newton's emission theory of light"
Seeing the v is zero, then it is consistent with it. c' = c+0 =c is fine
> and inconsistent with the
> antithesis "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the
> light source".
It is consistent with both.
What it is NOT consistent with is the theory that the speed of light would
vary depending on the direction of the beam
> Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein procrusteanized
> the reality (introduced length contraction, time dilation etc.) so as
> to make the Michelson-Morley experiment inconsistent with the thesis
> and consistent with the antithesis.
You have some distorted ideas there
> In the end, the antithesis became
> "the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories
> together":
Seeing it was experimentally supported and the thesis was refuted. Yeup.
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Good thing the postulate isn't shattered then
> Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
> the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
> theory of gravity is false."
Good thing it isn't
> http://www.buy.com/prod/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/q/loc/106/31065101.html
> Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one
> fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's
> speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with
> respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the
> train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light
> flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-
> Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always
> moves stubbornly at the same speed.
It didn't show that, although it is consistent with it .. but it did show
the speed was not affected by the direction of travel (relative to the fixed
ether that was assumed to exist in theories at the time).
> This means that if I take a light
> ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to
> measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same
> apparent speed!
Yeup. Thats correct. Experimental evidence supports this.
> Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in
> part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was
> that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That
> something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time.
> This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives,
> space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein
> conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing that could flex and
> change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of
> the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe
> that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the
> constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of
> physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the
> notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a
> swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics.
> Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory
> of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the
> universe works."
Yeup.
Henry Wilson, DSc
Sagnac fully supports BaTh. It plainly refutes SR because its analysis requires
that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.
>Things would be much simpler if the
>universe actually behaved that way. But wedont' get to choose the way the
>universe works.
>
Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
........putting Physics back into Phairyland...
Dono.
>
> Sagnac fully supports BaTh.
Quite the opposite, it refutes BaTh. So , you are taking another bath,
Raphie-boy.
> It plainly refutes SR because its analysis requires
> that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>
Nope, Raphie. Strike 3, you are out!
Whoever
news:v1bv5518gnic5melr...@4ax.com...
Stop lying Henry
> It plainly refutes SR
Stop lying Henry
> because its analysis requires
> that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
You don't understand the anlaysis .. and you get yours totally wrong
> If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.
It is your fault that you don't understand,, because it has been explained
to you countless times
Stop lying Henry .. and a fraudster deliberately trying to fool people into
believing your theory is correct. Get over it .. you're flogging a dead
horse.
doug
Whoever wrote:
Henry (who even lies about his name--it is Ralph) thinks
that lying is a way to make your point. He knows nothing of
science.
>
>> because its analysis requires
>> that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>
>
> You don't understand the anlaysis .. and you get yours totally wrong
That is why he has to lie all the time.
>
>> If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.
>
>
> It is your fault that you don't understand,, because it has been
> explained to you countless times
>
> Stop lying Henry .. and a fraudster deliberately trying to fool people
> into believing your theory is correct. Get over it .. you're flogging a
> dead horse.
Ralph lives in a delusional world where he tells himself he is
a scientist instead of the clueless fool he actually is.
>
>
Henry Wilson, DSc
You obviously know nothing about SR.
According to SR, the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. Have a look at
the SR analysis.
How does that happen?
Whoever
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:41 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:v1bv5518gnic5melr...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:12:54 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>Shame that that is refuted by Sagnac.
>>>
>>> Sagnac fully supports BaTh.
>>
>>Stop lying Henry
>>
>>> It plainly refutes SR
>>
>>Stop lying Henry
>>
>>> because its analysis requires
>>> that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>>
>>You don't understand the anlaysis .. and you get yours totally wrong
>>
>>> If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.
>>
>>It is your fault that you don't understand,, because it has been explained
>>to you countless times
>>
>>Stop lying Henry .. and a fraudster deliberately trying to fool people
>>into
>>believing your theory is correct. Get over it .. you're flogging a dead
>>horse.
>
> You obviously know nothing about SR.
Stop lying Henry
> According to SR, the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
Yeup
> Have a look at the SR analysis.
I have .. you obviously don't understand it, or you would not be making
false claims about it. Well. if you were an honest person you wouldn't.
However, it is well known that you are a liar.
> How does that happen?
I've explained it to you before, more than once, as have others. You'll
only lie about it if I explain it again.
Henry Wilson, DSc
So you agree that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. How would those
rays compare with two others that moved at c wrt the source...which is what
light normally does?
Whoever
The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v. That is what SR says
happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just a sad
little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
Henry Wilson, DSc
>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>news:n8e06593v20oarrht...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:52:35 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have a look at the SR analysis.
>>>
>>>I have .. you obviously don't understand it, or you would not be making
>>>false claims about it. Well. if you were an honest person you wouldn't.
>>>However, it is well known that you are a liar.
>>>
>>>> How does that happen?
>>>
>>>I've explained it to you before, more than once, as have others. You'll
>>>only lie about it if I explain it again.
>>
>> So you agree that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>
>The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
>non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v.
OK, now tell me how those two rays compare compare with two that are emitted at
c relative to the source. You DO know that light normally moves at c wrt its
soruce, I presume.
>That is what SR says
>happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just a sad
>little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute. Just
defending your religion with inane nonsense.
Whoever
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:14:52 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:n8e06593v20oarrht...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:52:35 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>> Have a look at the SR analysis.
>>>>
>>>>I have .. you obviously don't understand it, or you would not be making
>>>>false claims about it. Well. if you were an honest person you wouldn't.
>>>>However, it is well known that you are a liar.
>>>>
>>>>> How does that happen?
>>>>
>>>>I've explained it to you before, more than once, as have others. You'll
>>>>only lie about it if I explain it again.
>>>
>>> So you agree that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>>
>>The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
>>non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v.
>
> OK, now tell me how those two rays compare compare with two that are
> emitted at
> c relative to the source.
They are the same two rays regardless. You do realize this don't you?
> You DO know that light normally moves at c wrt its
> soruce, I presume.
In an inertial frame of reference where the source is at rest (and remains
at rest), yes. But with a rotating source, there is no inertial frame of
reference where the source remains at rest, because it is accelerating.
>>That is what SR says
>>happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just a
>>sad
>>little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
>
> You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute.
> Just
> defending your religion with inane nonsense.
You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
Henry Wilson, DSc
>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>news:gi1265lrg4f8uoaic...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:14:52 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
>>>non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v.
>>
>> OK, now tell me how those two rays compare compare with two that are
>> emitted at
>> c relative to the source.
>
>They are the same two rays regardless. You do realize this don't you?
Hahahahahahhahahhahahaaha!
Is that the best you can do?
Is this your admission of defeat?
>> You DO know that light normally moves at c wrt its
>> soruce, I presume.
>
>In an inertial frame of reference where the source is at rest (and remains
>at rest), yes. But with a rotating source, there is no inertial frame of
>reference where the source remains at rest, because it is accelerating.
speeds of those pulses?
Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha!...plain aether theory...
Answer this.
S->a----------------------------------------P1------P2-------P3
S is an accelerating source that periodically emits pulses of light.
How would you quantify the speeds of those pulses?
>>>That is what SR says
>>>happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just a
>>>sad
>>>little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
>>
>> You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>> Just
>> defending your religion with inane nonsense.
You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
Whoever
> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:25:52 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:gi1265lrg4f8uoaic...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:14:52 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
>>>>non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v.
>>>
>>> OK, now tell me how those two rays compare compare with two that are
>>> emitted at
>>> c relative to the source.
>>
>>They are the same two rays regardless. You do realize this don't you?
>
> Hahahahahahhahahhahahaaha!
> Is that the best you can do?
> Is this your admission of defeat?
I'm not defeated by lies. But it is showing you are a fool by saying there
are four rays involved.
>>> You DO know that light normally moves at c wrt its
>>> soruce, I presume.
>>
>>In an inertial frame of reference where the source is at rest (and remains
>>at rest), yes. But with a rotating source, there is no inertial frame of
>>reference where the source remains at rest, because it is accelerating.
>
> speeds of those pulses?
What pulses?
> Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha!...plain aether theory...
No aether invovled. Stop your lies
> Answer this.
> S->a----------------------------------------P1------P2-------P3
>
> S is an accelerating source that periodically emits pulses of light.
> How would you quantify the speeds of those pulses?
They would be at c relative to every inertial frame of reference. S is not
an inertial frame. AS S is accelerating, and the pulses are not, the rate
of separation of the pulses from S would vary.
Henry Wilson, DSc
Hahahahahhahaha! THANK YOU DEAR LADY.
YOU HAVE NOW FULLY APPROVED THE BATH VARIABLE STAR THEORY, BASED ENTIRELY ON
THOSE VARIABLE SEPARATION RATES.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>>>That is what SR says
>>>>>happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just a
>>>>>sad
>>>>>little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>>>> Just
>>>> defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>>
>> You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>> Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>
>You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
YOU HAVE JUST APPROVED MY WHOLE THEORY, DEAR LADY....WHY ARE YOU STILL CALLING
ME A CRACKPOT?
Hahahahhahahhahahahahhahaa!
Whoever
So your theory is special relativity now, and not ballistic then? Then I
agree
>>>>>>That is what SR says
>>>>>>happens. This has been explained to you countless times. You're just
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>sad
>>>>>>little lying troll. Truly pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>>>>> Just
>>>>> defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>>>
>>> You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to
>>> contribute.
>>> Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>>
>>You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>>Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>
> YOU HAVE JUST APPROVED MY WHOLE THEORY, DEAR LADY
> ....WHY ARE YOU STILL CALLING
> ME A CRACKPOT?
>
> Hahahahhahahhahahahahhahaa!
So your theory is special relativity now, and not ballistic then? Then I
agree