Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is just as obviously absurd as Big Brother's 2+2=5. Consider Doppler (moving observer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is just as obviously absurd as Big Brother's 2+2=5, why do physicists worship it? George Orwell explains:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of
experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For,
after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 14 September 2022 at 21:50:15 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

If Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is just as obviously absurd as Big Brother's 2+2=5, why do physicists worship it? George Orwell explains:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of

experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For,
after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Keep up the good work Pentch. Einsteins ideas were all nonsense. Including his ridiculous
photon idea. Photons which incidentally have never been observed. Notice another low Grade
intellect Zwicky, used Einsteins photon nonsense to “provide evidence” that the universe
has to be expanding because with “tired light” in a non expanding universe
the idiot Zwicky said...”In the tired light model where photons bumped into other particles
on the way this would lead to scattering of light on the way, which isn’t observed”
Usual Relativist nonsense and lies. Seeing as light ISNT an Albert style “photon” and
is a wave only. Which means light as a wave can’t very well “bump” into particles on the
way and cause imaginary blurring. Can’t it?
It’s an ironic claim by Zwicky because if you think about why the whole fantasy of
the Big Bang was created. It was created because Einsteins silly, empirically unverified,
fantasy of photons was the reason why Hubble et al *had* to create the ridiculous
concept of a Big Bang. Because it was not possible for an imaginary photon to change frequency over great cosmological distances!

And then to add insult to injury the relativists then used their same photon fantasy
To “prove” that a non expanding model of the universe predicts an imaginary blurring
of light due to imaginary photons bumping into particles on the way.
Photons which are not part of any non expanding model of the universe.
A model which is based on empirical observations which include
the (photon free) classical wave only model of light.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/14/22 1:12 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is just as obviously absurd as Big Brother's 2+2=5. Consider Doppler (moving observer):
...

Notice the meaning of these symbols in this different
counting system than our standard western Hindu Arabic.

It uses similar symbols and the meaning of '=' is
the same in this example. On the left is the symbol.
On the right is a number of dots that the symbol
represents in the different symbolic representation
of counting.

1 = .
2 = ..
3 = ...
5 = ....
4 = .....
6 = ......
7 = .......
8 = ........
9 = .........

This symbol system is nearly identical to Hindu-Arabic
system that we know, however the meaning of the symbols
'5' and '4' are interchanged.

In this symbolic representation of a counting system,
2+2=5 and 2+3=4.

If you do not explain what the symbols mean and do not
give the symbols clear definitions in the counting system,
however, then even something as seemingly simple as
this is actually gibberish without meaning.

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)