Consider this:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission
theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect
light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

So in 1887 the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with variable (dependent on the speed of the emitter, c'=c±v) speed of light. The following question is forbidden (let alone the answer):

Was the null result simultaneously (in 1887) compatible with constant (independent of the speed of the emitter, c'=c) speed of light?

Why is the situation so dramatic? The answer 'yes' is obviously idiotic. The answer 'no' is suicidal for physicists. The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable, modern physics, predicated on Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
falsehood, is long dead (exists in a zombie state):

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." http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/ Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one should not judge him too severely for (numerous)
imperfections.

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi: "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light...So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/
8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is
embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed...The speed of light is the very
keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured...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." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/
dp/0738205257

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

Pentcho Valev

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

A light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

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

Does the motion of the observer change the distance between incoming light pulses?

Absolutely forbidden question. The answer 'yes' is obviously idiotic. The answer 'no' means that the speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer. As a result, Einstein's relativity collapses, modern physics as a whole
collapses as well.

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

Pentcho Valev

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

Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the
curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156

Einstein regularly informed the scientific community that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field, but NEVER said how it varies. And the scientific community realized that

How does the speed of light vary in a gravitational field, according to general relativity?

is a forbidden question.

General relativity predicts that, as light falls towards a source of gravity, its speed DECREASES (and increases as the light moves in the opposite direction). This is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. So Einsteinians teach
the correct Newtonian prediction (the speed of falling photons INCREASES), draw correct consequences, and NEVER mention the preposterous prediction of Einstein's general relativity:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/
Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore,
that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the
equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be
able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the
theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

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

Pentcho Valev

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

In electrospray, any liquid forms a powerful jet obviously able to do mechanical work, e.g. by rotating a waterwheel:

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

The jet is powered by what energy? In other words, the mechanical work will be done at the expense of what energy?

Absolutely forbidden question. Careful examination of the process

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqemod9DutI&t=6s

leads to the conclusion that the only usable energy is AMBIENT HEAT. Absolutely forbidden answer as well. Theoretical physicists find both the question and the answer unbearable.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:

In 1972 Herbert Dingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle asked a forbidden question and was converted from a high dignitary into a pariah:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates...HOW IS THE SLOWER-WORKING CLOCK

DISTINGUISHED? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to appear to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice,
but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of
possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://blog.hasslberger.
com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

In special relativity, the slower-working clock is distinguished in accordance with Einstein's arbitrary choice. In 1905 he found it profitable to declare that the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary clock, and that is what today's scientists

know and teach.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

In reality which is slower has been verified time and time again by
actual experiments with actual "clocks", i.e. atomic standards.

Just because you can't understand something does not make it false,
crackpot.

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

In 1972 Herbert Dingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle asked a forbidden question and was converted from a high dignitary into a pariah:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates...HOW IS THE SLOWER-WORKING CLOCK
DISTINGUISHED? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to appear to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice,
but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of
possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://blog.hasslberger.
com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

In special relativity, the slower-working clock is distinguished in accordance with Einstein's arbitrary choice. In 1905 he found it profitable to declare that the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary clock, and that is what today's scientists know
and teach.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:46:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

In 1972 Herbert Dingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle asked a forbidden question and was converted from a high dignitary into a pariah:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates...HOW IS THE SLOWER-WORKING CLOCK

DISTINGUISHED? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to appear to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice,
but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of
possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://blog.hasslberger.
com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

In special relativity, the slower-working clock is distinguished in accordance with Einstein's arbitrary choice. In 1905 he found it profitable to declare that the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary clock, and that is what today's scientists

know and teach.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

In reality which is slower has been verified time and time again by
actual experiments with actual "clocks", i.e. atomic standards.

Just because you can't understand something does not make it false, crackpot.

So who has understanding and how do they know?
Don't ask that question it might upset jim...

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

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:46:09 AM UTC-7, Jim Pennino wrote:

Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

In 1972 Herbert Dingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle asked a forbidden question and was converted from a high dignitary into a pariah:

Herbert Dingle: "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates...HOW IS THE SLOWER-WORKING CLOCK

DISTINGUISHED? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to appear to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice,
but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of
possible effects of acceleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock
situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude from his theory that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://blog.hasslberger.
com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

In special relativity, the slower-working clock is distinguished in accordance with Einstein's arbitrary choice. In 1905 he found it profitable to declare that the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary clock, and that is what today's scientists

know and teach.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

In reality which is slower has been verified time and time again by
actual experiments with actual "clocks", i.e. atomic standards.

Just because you can't understand something does not make it false,
crackpot.

So who has understanding and how do they know?

Generally, people with more than a luke warm IQ who have actually studied science and mathematics and have done actual experiments, which leaves
you out.

Don't ask that question it might upset jim...

Your laughable babble is not upsetting, rather it is often hilarious and somewhat amazing that someone could say the blazingly stupid things you
do and survive outside of a 24/7 care home.

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