• #### AN ELEMENTARY ERROR IN TOM ROBERTS DEFENSE OF SR:

From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 2 16:18:54 2023
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?"
- https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.

"The speed of light is said to be isotropic if it has the same value when measured in any/every direction."- Roberts

According to Galileo light speed is isotropic in any frame of reference moving with a uniform linear motion.

[Galileo= "make the Ship to move with what velocity you please; for (so long as the motion is uniforme, and not fluctuating this way and that way) you shall not discern any the least alteration in all the forenamed effects; nor can you gather by any of
them whether the Ship doth move or stand still. In leaping you shall reach as far upon the floor, as before; nor for that the Ship moveth shall you make a greater leap towards the poop than towards the prow;" [Galilei, Galileo. Delphi Collected Works of
Galileo Galilei (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Seven Book 26) (p. 567). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.]

Therefore, all experiments proving isotropy of light speed prove light shares the velocity of the source per Galileo.

Therefore, they disprove the second postulate, which asserts the contrary. It essentially asserts the "independence" of the speed of light from it's source. If light speed is independent of the source it would not be isotropic.

Shared velocity: additive velocity formula: sqrt c^2 + v^2 (Galilean). (1.) Independent velocity: additive velocity formula: sqrt c^2 - v^2 (Relativity). (2.)

Employing the Galilean formula to a transverse light beam in an inertial frame of reference results in the isotropic speed of light.

Employing the Relativity formula does not.

The Galilean explanation is far more parsimonious and SR is highly ad hoc.

Contrary to Roberts, modern physics is not based on relativity. It is based on Galileo and Newton.

Roberts has failed to practice "elementary error analysis" he demands of others.

Relativity's "domain of applicability" is in fiction.

"isotropy
n. isotropism; uniformity of properties and characteristics along all axes (Physics)"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 2 16:49:03 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:18:57 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.

"The speed of light is said to be isotropic if it has the same value when measured in any/every direction."- Roberts

According to Galileo light speed is isotropic in any frame of reference moving with a uniform linear motion.

[Galileo= "make the Ship to move with what velocity you please; for (so long as the motion is uniforme, and not fluctuating this way and that way) you shall not discern any the least alteration in all the forenamed effects; nor can you gather by any of
them whether the Ship doth move or stand still. In leaping you shall reach as far upon the floor, as before; nor for that the Ship moveth shall you make a greater leap towards the poop than towards the prow;" [Galilei, Galileo. Delphi Collected Works of
Galileo Galilei (Illustrated) (Delphi Series Seven Book 26) (p. 567). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.]

Therefore, all experiments proving isotropy of light speed prove light shares the velocity of the source per Galileo.

Therefore, they disprove the second postulate, which asserts the contrary. It essentially asserts the "independence" of the speed of light from it's source. If light speed is independent of the source it would not be isotropic.

Shared velocity: additive velocity formula: sqrt c^2 + v^2 (Galilean). (1.) Independent velocity: additive velocity formula: sqrt c^2 - v^2 (Relativity). (2.)

Employing the Galilean formula to a transverse light beam in an inertial frame of reference results in the isotropic speed of light.

Employing the Relativity formula does not.

The Galilean explanation is far more parsimonious and SR is highly ad hoc.

Contrary to Roberts, modern physics is not based on relativity. It is based on Galileo and Newton.

Roberts has failed to practice "elementary error analysis" he demands of others.

Relativity's "domain of applicability" is in fiction.

"isotropy
n. isotropism; uniformity of properties and characteristics along all axes (Physics)"
Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of the source:
1.) If THE ROUND TRIP is isotropic, having the same speed in an inertial frame of reference both in the direction of motion and perpendicular to it, it will obey the above formula for the perpendicular beam and this for the longitudinal beam: V= (c+v) + (
c-v);
2.) FOR EACH LEG: Out: C+V/D + d = C; Back: C-V/D-d = C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 2 20:24:01 2023
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.

Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I assert
anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of the
source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 2 22:21:21 2023
On Sunday, 3 September 2023 at 03:24:08 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently

we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 3 10:40:31 2023
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether. I certainly agree with that.
However, they provide no more evidence for SR than for emission theory.
You said "the experimental basis of Special Relativity."
You also said of several isotropy experiments:
"So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR."
"Their null result is consistent with SR."
Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it. Regardless of what you may have intended, the isotropy experiments you list and describe, disprove the second postulate in the way I describe.
Then it is you who are failing to comprehend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 3 17:33:17 2023
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.

to me.

You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.

Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 3 22:55:49 2023
On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 00:33:24 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.

We're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 4 13:25:24 2023
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts
Maybe you could read what I wrote? You do not know how to think logically as you defend logical fallacies such as ad populum and ad verrecundium instead of reasoning. Relativity is thoroughly ignorant nonsense. The only reason otherwise intelligent
people believe it is they are indoctrinated in it and never question it carefully. You have not engaged my reasons why light speed isotropy is inconsistent with the second postulate. The only way it would be isotropic is if it shares the velocity of the
source, as in Galileo's ship cabin. Then, velocity would match the distance moved, making the velocity c within the cabin for both longitudinal and transverse beams. If the transverse beam speed were independent of the velocity of the source, it would be
sqrt of C^2 MINUS V^2, (contrary to Galileo) then it would not be c relative to the cabin and it would not be isotropic. Everyone can understand that. Therefore, you are proven wrong. You cannot understand such a simple matter due to being indoctrinated
in an irrational belief.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 4 13:40:30 2023
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts
Why so heavy handed? You might listen: "This is what one (starting with Einstein) calls the
“addition of velocities”, save that here it is the “subtraction”. This “addition” relationship, is here
called s. No such object or relationship exists that mathematically can be called addition. " - "The Theory Of Relativity - Galileo’s Child" -Mitchell J. Feigenbaum

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 4 14:04:19 2023
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts
It is obvious that sqrt C^2 + V^2= 300000.0015 and that sqrt of c^2- V^2= 2.9999999.9985. How do you then get the isotropy of the longitudinal and transverse beams in an interferometer? You don't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 4 14:05:19 2023
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts
It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 4 16:14:26 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html >>> He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it
disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.

Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 4 16:32:01 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID >> IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.
Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?
Yes, I have good aim. The whole point is that relativity errors are elementary, and you can't address them. -LCC, skeptic of UFOs, Bigfoot & relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 4 16:38:20 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID >> IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.
Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 4 16:40:20 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID >> IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.
Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?
Paul, it's like this. Galileo didn't say you couldn't tell the boat was moving. Einstein did.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 4 16:50:40 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID >> IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.
Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?
"These tensor equations must then be covariant under allowed transformations, which is the correct discussion, and leads to all, and only those transformations that simply leave the speed invariant." -"The Theory Of Relativity - Galileo’s Child" -
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum; The point is, you only need Galilean transformations to keep the speed of light invariant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 4 17:14:19 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:32:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I
assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID >> IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two >> quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of >>> the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is
certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.

Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?

and ghosts, fairy tales, time travel...

Crossen, you remain clueless about all things regarding physics, and anyone with a high-school physics education can easily see this... and this is not likely to change anytime soon.

Your knowledge of physics is essentially a small pimple on the ass of Tom's knowledge of physics. As always, you don't know what you don't know!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 4 20:21:06 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:14:21 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:32:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special >>> Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I >> assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of >>> the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is
certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.

Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?

and ghosts, fairy tales, time travel...
Crossen, you remain clueless about all things regarding physics, and anyone with a high-school physics education can easily see this... and this is not likely to change anytime soon.

Your knowledge of physics is essentially a small pimple on the ass of Tom's knowledge of physics. As always, you don't know what you don't know!
Poo Tom can't understand that isotropy of light speed falsifies the second postulate. That is very sad.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 4 21:19:43 2023
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 8:21:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:14:21 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:32:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 4:14:29 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 2:05:22 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:33:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/3/23 12:40 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/2/23 6:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
As given by him in: "What is the experimental basis of Special >>> Relativity?" -
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
He asserts isotropy of light speed as proof of SR.
Apparently you are unable to read. NOWHERE on that webpage do I >> assert anything like that -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP AND PRETEND I SAID
IT.

[... "argument" full of puns that destroy any credibility]

For instance, "Shares the velocity of the source" is used with two
quite different meanings, ignoring the difference.

You REALLY need to learn how to read.

[...] Mathematical proof that light speed shares the velocity of
the source

This is not mathematical, is not a proof, and shows nothing.

You REALLY need to learn how to think.

Tom Roberts
Perhaps you only meant the experiments as disproofs of the ether.
to me.
You also said of several isotropy experiments: "So this experiment is
certainly consistent with SR." "Their null result is consistent with
SR." Isotropy is not consistent with the second postulate, it disproves it.
Not true. Isotropy is indeed consistent with the predictions of SR.

I repeat: You REALLY need to learn how to read. You REALLY need to learn
how to think.

Tom Roberts

It is a simple math question. Please, do tell.

Do you always show up at a gun fight with a tiny little letter-opener?

and ghosts, fairy tales, time travel...
Crossen, you remain clueless about all things regarding physics, and anyone with a high-school physics education can easily see this... and this is not likely to change anytime soon.

Your knowledge of physics is essentially a small pimple on the ass of Tom's knowledge of physics. As always, you don't know what you don't know!

Poo Tom can't understand that isotropy of light speed falsifies the second postulate. That is very sad.

Apparently, you are very proud of your profound ignorance of the subject matter.

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