TOM ROBERTS CLEVERER THAN STEPHEN HAWKING

Pentcho Valev

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 2:40:04 AM1/16/07

to

Members of Einstein's criminal cult are either hypnotists or zombies
but it is extremely difficult to know who is what because both groups
repeat the same idiocies and zombies are often much more active - write
bestsellers etc. Still there are simple criteria that work sometimes.
For instance, hypnotists do know that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms both Newton's particle model of light and the respective
principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light: speed of light is c
relative to the light source and c+v as measured by the observer, where
v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. So hypnotists
would drop a brick:

Tom Roberts wrote in science.physics.relativity:
> John Kennaugh wrote:
> > By far the simplest explanation of the Null result of the MMX is that
> > light is made up of particles whose speed is c relative to the source -
> > a result of the physical process which generates it.
>
> Perhaps. But Einstein was NOT trying to "explain the MMX result"....

Zombies never drop a brick - they know something that is both simple
and absolute: the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's
principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light:

Stephen Hawking:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
"Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles,
rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and
made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by
two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev

Eric Gisse

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 4:13:28 AM1/16/07

to

VALVE CHOP TEN wrote:

I AM STUPID

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 8:24:32 AM1/16/07

to

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Members of Einstein's criminal cult...

G. L. Bradford

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 9:19:22 AM1/16/07

to

"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168933204.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

But the difference is never a difference in the constant of the speed of
light, measured the same constant by all observers. The difference shows up
as differing wavelengths and frequencies. I arrived at the consistent
constancy of c via visually manipulating variously the light cone -- and the
variably expanded and contracted objects I put in the place of it -- on one
hand, while in parallel to that manipulation as a conversion of it,
manipulating the [frequency] of time between A and B (not time in A's frame,
and not time in B's frame, but the highly variable frequency of time in the
highly variable non-local frame between those two local frames) on the other
hand. I was able to match the former to the latter, converting back and
forth, only due to the shher constancy of c permitting equivalent pictures.

GLB