1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
This is not what relativity is derived from. You are fighting not
relativity in your posts but figments of your imagination.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They are not lies.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.
Not even wrong. Why do you waste your time on this hobby? Can't you
devote your time to something you can be good at?
--
Jan
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 4:15:49 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.Contrary to the above lies of those claiming to be mathematicians, the formulas are all based on these two lies, which Einstein attributes to Maxwell's equations.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:15:49 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
2. The speed of light does not include the source velocity.
THEREFORE, THE MATHEMATICIANS ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF ANY COMPLICITY IN THESE LIES.
They only provided the formulas to express them in the language of mathematics.One of many more than two lies. This one concerning the "derivation" of Lorentz transforms, which involve A CONCEPTUAL
VIOLATION OF INFINITESIMAL VALUES in calculus.
When the cretin applies derivates in
§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and
Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former
***********************************************************
1/2 [τ(0,0,0,t) + τ(0,0,0,t + x'/(c - v) + x'/(c + v)] = τ[ (x',0,0,t + x'/(c-v)]
Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small, ***********************************************************
He LIED in plain sight, because the average wavelength of white light is 550 nm, NOT ZERO.
So, for x' being infinitesimally small, it implied that the light going forth and back on the magic mirrors HAD TO HAVE
ZERO WAVELENGTH, not an average of 0,55 micrometers.
Then, subsequent mathematical manipulations ARE FALSE, NOT VALID.
1. The speed of light does not have relative (additive) velocity.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 145:22:01 |
Calls: | 6,931 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,392 |
Messages: | 5,437,117 |