• #### Light speed isotropy disproves the second postulate.

From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 5 13:07:17 2023
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

"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

Galilean transform gives a positive additive velocity, yet the transverse beam covers a hypotenuse's lengthened path, so the increased speed matches the increased length.

Relativity uses a negative additive velocity formula (see above quote) to give a slower speed over the lengthened path.

A. GALILEAN:

sqrt C^2 + V^2; 300,000^2 + 30^2= 9.00000009^10 sqrt= 300000.0015.

C. RELATIVITY:

sqrt C^2 - V^2; 300,000^2 - 30^2= 8.99999991^10 sqrt= 299,999.9985

CONCLUSION: Light speed in relativity is anisotropic.

"These theories, in particular of relativity and the quantum of action, are both of such a highly transcendental character, bordering often on the bizarre and whimsical, as to justify an inquiry as to how far they can be regarded as science at all." -
Frederick Soddy "Address to Nobel Prizewinners" -1954

Soddy said of the discovery of radioactive decay: "...it was, and remained for long, unpopular with the then high priests of the subject..." - ibid

"Now uniformly in this whole immense advance of experimental knowledge there is nothing
whatever essentially difficult for the layman to understand... Further to hide its real origins, and to make it appear to have originated in the corkscrew brains of the mathematical physicists, its very name "radioactivity" has been changed to "nuclear
physics"!" - ibid

"...Really scientific minds like Robert Boyle, who wrote "The Sceptical Chemist", are still
rare freaks by comparison." - ibid

"to me one of the greatest dangers of the age is the pathetic belief that mathematics cannot lie, for, if misunderstood, mathematics can be the arch.-deceiver." - ibid

"So far as I know, the first attempt to attach a physical meaning to a mathematical solution,
from which the operator i had not first been eliminated from the final result, was in the
theory of relativity. This started the pretentious humbug that theory has been saddled with,
and which I think it is time to characterize as a backward step into the realm of fantasy
and mysticism, tending, if indeed not so intended, to bring science into contempt with the
layman, and a source of satisfaction only to the traditional enemies of science - dogma,
charlatanry, and obscurantism." -ibid

"The matter was summed up by the late Susan Stebbings, Professor of Philosophy in the
University of London, who, with the age-long experience of her sex of the posturing male,
remarked acidly about such writings, "All of this means just nothing at all". Viscount Samuel
(Essay in Physics, 1951)... He likens Einstein’s mode of argument to the grin of the Cheshire
Cat in Alice in Wonderland which remains behind after the Cat had vanished!" -ibid

"Whilst there is no objection urged against mathematicians doing whatever seems good to
them in their own sphere, quite definitely they should be stopped from presenting their
whims as science, let alone pretending that in the last analysis they are the real scientists." -ibid

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Sep 5 19:02:58 2023
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 16:14:25 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 16:18:29 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
As the given quote shows, Einstein used the subtractive velocity formula.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 16:16:30 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
As shown above, the Galilean formula gives c within the frame of reference.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 20:35:24 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept
If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 5 20:43:32 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 00:29:04 2023
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC. >>>
You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” >> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.

Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Sep 5 21:48:36 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Tue Sep 5 23:30:50 2023
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 06:48:39 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.
No, not in this universe...

Not in the universe gedanken/fabricated by relativistic clowns,
that's for sure.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 16:29:36 2023
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC. >>>
You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” >> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer
always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's
illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a
choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue Sep 5 23:33:56 2023
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 08:29:41 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result -

No, it wasn't. It was a consequence of insane postulates
of Your insane guru. Well, even he was unable to stick to
it for long and he had to withdraw from it in his GR.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 6 10:27:50 2023
Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a >>>null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip >>>will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
"stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether"
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light
pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the
longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light
beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 6 01:41:07 2023
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 10:27:54 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Yes, lady - your priests have lied to You, and this one is
even stupid enough to admit it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 10:23:42 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.
No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...
Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 10:23:32 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:29:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference? The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v. More to the point, why would Einstein have to
propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Wed Sep 6 10:24:18 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
No, the speed of light always comes out c in a frame with uniform linear motion, as in Galileo's ship. It does not do so when these requirements do not obtain. This means it obeys Galilean transformations, not c - v.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Sep 6 10:24:52 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a >>>null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip >>>will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
"stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" >> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula. 3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
In his paper, Tom Roberts gives many interferometer experiments demonstrating the isotropy of the speed of light: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?"
- https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

I postulate Galilean transformations to explain the isotropy. The subtractive velocity formula of Einstein does not work.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 14:06:13 2023
On 9/6/2023 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:29:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” >>>> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed. >> Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.

Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?

Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?

Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant
whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 11:27:27 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:06:17 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:29:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.

Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.
The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.
Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!
More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.
Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous. The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system? If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference, and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.

It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V? Did he conjure it?

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?

Galileo's method works for light in a frame moving with uniform linear motion. That is how it was measured as constant. Otherwise, it would not. Galileo's method applies to light.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 11:45:30 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 12:43:46 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:06:17 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:29:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.

Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.
The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.
Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!
More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.
"...the central point that the existence of an invariant velocity is not required as an independent assumption." - Mermin "Relativity Without Light"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 12:40:57 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.
I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!
You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I am
confident you are severely ignorant period.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 13:09:29 2023
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 20:06:17 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:29:08 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 7:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.

You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.

Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant whenever measured

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie, and even some

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 17:08:59 2023
On 9/6/2023 1:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” >>>> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an
experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer
always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's
illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a
choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.

No, the speed of light always comes out c in a frame with uniform linear motion, as in Galileo's ship. It does not do so when these requirements do not obtain.

Well yes, the speed of light is always c in frames with uniform linear
motion, that is inertial frames. When the observer is in a non-inertial
frame (Tom R. doesn't even consider them to be frames), that is,
acceleration is involved, the speed of light may be something other than c.

This means it obeys Galilean transformations,

Or the Lorentzian transformation.

not c - v.

I have no idea why you keep coming up with some sort of "c-v" claim and
blaming SR for it. Nobody except for yourself has ever mentioned such
idiocy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 15:09:32 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things that
you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely. However,
it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand even
1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 17:24:30 2023
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of >>>> light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed >>>> as c-v for some unknown reasons.

As to your multiple other replies to my reply, they make about as much >>>> sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant
whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.

Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The
observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving
at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?

The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?

Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept?

If so, that would be a different frame of reference.

???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the
one named the "stationary system"

If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference,

The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."

and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.

He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.

It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?

Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything
beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?

What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 18:05:27 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

Einstein didn't need relativity. The speed of light is the same across the universe.
How is the difference between relative and the absolute physics measured?
How can science measure their difference? and what is wrong with absolute physics?
The atom can compete with light absolute speed at a motion black hole.
It shows the atom has absolute speed competing with light.
Why would it be relative?

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 20:37:29 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of >>>> light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed >>>> as c-v for some unknown reasons.

As to your multiple other replies to my reply, they make about as much >>>> sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant
whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving
at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept?
If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the
one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference,
The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."
and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?
Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.
I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame. Which do you think he meant? Both?

You can consult the article I gave you the title of if you like.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Wed Sep 6 20:37:41 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 6:05:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it.
I am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!
Einstein didn't need relativity. The speed of light is the same across the universe.
How is the difference between relative and the absolute physics measured? How can science measure their difference? and what is wrong with absolute physics?
The atom can compete with light absolute speed at a motion black hole.
It shows the atom has absolute speed competing with light.
Why would it be relative?

Mitchell Raemsch
Yes, I think I know you believe every photon is reabsorbed in interstellar space being re-emitted at c relative to that particle. Then how is there a Doppler shift?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 20:37:44 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!
Anyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it. It doesn't matter who recognizes people's knowledge. Many people in history have remained unrecognized for their knowledge. That is an appeal to authority which is an ignorant fallacy resorted to by
ignorant people. Why would I hold up to further ridicule the skeptics who you people have been so nasty to? You haven't shown any evidence of any knowledge or comprehension of physics. All you do is appeal to authority. The answers to your questions have
been given many times yet you ask the same questions showing no comprehension of the answers. Relativity functions as an ideology. Because you rely on authority instead of reasoning you haven't even read that article. Many scientists all along have
already given sufficient reason to refute relativity and they have accordingly rejected it themselves even if you can't understand or even listen.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 20:47:02 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!
If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 20:52:24 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!
Or if you were capable of both listening and comprehending you might rely: "Sure if it functioned as an ideology, as the paper you so kindly shared explained, then this would have prevented recognition of their refutations. However, for the following
reasons I tend to differ." But no, its always deaf ears and appeal to authority instead of reason.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 20:56:08 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it.
I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

You failed to answer this question.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.

I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Sep 6 21:02:36 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:52:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it.
I am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't understand
even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

Or if you were capable of both listening and comprehending you might rely: "Sure if it functioned as an ideology, as the paper you so kindly shared explained, then this would have prevented recognition of their refutations. However, for the following
reasons I tend to differ." But no, its always deaf ears and appeal to authority instead of reason.

Reason can fail you when it comes to physics. Theories and models are supported by evidence in the form of experiments and/or observations, and these experiments and/or observations need to be repeatable by anyone with the proper foundations. Reason os a
dead-end by itself. Evidence rules, and you haven't any at all. So far NO ONE has presented evidence that overturns relativity and it definitely will not be YOU who finally does it, because you do not understand the theory and therefore cannot argue
against it!

Either bring forward actual evidence to support your claims or get completely out of the kitchen, because so far you've got nothing at all!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Wed Sep 6 22:25:37 2023
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 23:09:03 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 1:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an
experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what >> the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer >> always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's
illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a >> choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as >> we think it should be.

Sylvia.

No, the speed of light always comes out c in a frame with uniform linear motion, as in Galileo's ship. It does not do so when these requirements do not obtain.
Well yes, the speed of light is always c in frames with uniform linear

Well, assertion is not an argument, stupid Mike.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 22:28:13 2023
On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 00:09:35 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about it. I
am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity...

Sure, Al, they re welcome with spitting, insults and slanders
by fanatic idiots like yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Wed Sep 6 22:30:05 2023
On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 06:02:38 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:52:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about
it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.
So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.

Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

Or if you were capable of both listening and comprehending you might rely: "Sure if it functioned as an ideology, as the paper you so kindly shared explained, then this would have prevented recognition of their refutations. However, for the following
reasons I tend to differ." But no, its always deaf ears and appeal to authority instead of reason.
Reason can fail you when it comes to physics.

Oh sure, nop reason when it comes to physics.
Poor doggies of physics are lacking reason to

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Sep 7 01:59:00 2023
On 9/6/2023 11:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of >>>>>> light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed >>>>>> as c-v for some unknown reasons.

As to your multiple other replies to my reply, they make about as much >>>>>> sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference, >>>> which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This
part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant
whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other
words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The
observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving
at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept?
If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the
one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference,
The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."
and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V? >> Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything
beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.

I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame.

The source is the "stationary or moving body" Einstein mentions. No c-v
there.

Which do you think he meant? Both?

Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some blacksmith use your head as an anvil when you were a child or something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Sep 7 15:32:56 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about
it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of things
that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.
I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!
No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority. My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Sep 7 16:36:13 2023
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant about
it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of
things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.
I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.

That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and universities all
over the world.

My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.

Your references, mostly written by crank authors, are clearly not evidence as described by the scientific method. If any of them had been actual evidence, relativity would have been brought down... but it has not. Your own "reasoning" is not going to
rescue you from your dismal knowledge of physics.

You continue to not know what you don't know, and what you don't know is simply huge. Read that dang textbook.

If you don't like my reactions to your nonsense, you can either killfile me or quit responding, I don't care one way or another... but I call 'em and I see 'em, and from here you are just a guy who knows very little physics, if any at all. Tell, me, what
is your curriculum vitae? Does it include any physics at all?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Sep 7 20:12:43 2023
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:36:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant
about it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of
things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.
I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.
That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and universities
all over the world.

How weak minded can you be? Another appeal to authority. It must be because you don't know any of the reasons!********

My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.
Your references, mostly written by crank authors, are clearly not evidence as described by the scientific method. If any of them had been actual evidence, relativity would have been brought down... but it has not. Your own "reasoning" is not going to
rescue you from your dismal knowledge of physics.

Another appeal to authority instead of reasons because you don't know any!**************

You continue to not know what you don't know, and what you don't know is simply huge. Read that dang textbook.

If you don't like my reactions to your nonsense, you can either killfile me or quit responding, I don't care one way or another... but I call 'em and I see 'em, and from here you are just a guy who knows very little physics, if any at all. Tell, me,
what is your curriculum vitae? Does it include any physics at all?

I have tried my best to extract any reasoning or evidence from you all to no avail! I give up! You are truly PAUL THE HECKLER and nothing more. This is my final judgement. Thumbs down.****

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Thu Sep 7 20:15:04 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:59:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 11:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference, >>>> which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This >>>> part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant >>>> whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other >>>> words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The
observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving
at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept?
If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the >> one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference, >> The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."
and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?
Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything >> beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.

I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame.
The source is the "stationary or moving body" Einstein mentions. No c-v there.
Which do you think he meant? Both?
Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some blacksmith use your head as an anvil when you were a child or something?
When the longitudinal beam goes out to the mirror at c and the mirror moves away, what is the speed relative to the mirror considering that the mirror moved away? Is it c -v or c + v?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Sep 7 22:54:37 2023
On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 07:18:01 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

I will continue to heckle folks who have no idea what they are talking about because it entertains me...

You'll continue to spit, insult and slanders at
the enemies of your insane religion, because
that's what you were trained for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Sep 7 22:17:59 2023
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:12:46 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:36:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant
about it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of
things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens
routinely. However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100%
get a Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.

I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.
That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and universities
all over the world.
How weak minded can you be? Another appeal to authority. It must be because you don't know any of the reasons!********
My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.
Your references, mostly written by crank authors, are clearly not evidence as described by the scientific method. If any of them had been actual evidence, relativity would have been brought down... but it has not. Your own "reasoning" is not going to
rescue you from your dismal knowledge of physics.

Another appeal to authority instead of reasons because you don't know any!**************

You better go back and re-learn exactly what an appeal to authority means because this another area where your "logical" thinking is all messed up! It does not mean what you think it means.

You continue to not know what you don't know, and what you don't know is simply huge. Read that dang textbook.

If you don't like my reactions to your nonsense, you can either killfile me or quit responding, I don't care one way or another... but I call 'em and I see 'em, and from here you are just a guy who knows very little physics, if any at all. Tell, me,
what is your curriculum vitae? Does it include any physics at all?

I have tried my best to extract any reasoning or evidence from you all to no avail! I give up! You are truly PAUL THE HECKLER and nothing more. This is my final judgement. Thumbs down.****

I will continue to heckle folks who have no idea what they are talking about because it entertains me... and I wish that you really would give up, because you are going nowhere fast.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Thu Sep 7 22:55:59 2023
On Friday, 8 September 2023 at 01:36:16 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant
about it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot of
things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens routinely.
However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100% get a
Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.
I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.
That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and universities
all over the world.

That is an outright lie, Al, the mumble of your bunch of idiots
is not even consistent.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Sep 8 07:07:46 2023
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:18:01 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:12:46 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:36:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant
about it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot
of things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens
routinely. However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100%
get a Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.

I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.
That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and
universities all over the world.
How weak minded can you be? Another appeal to authority. It must be because you don't know any of the reasons!********
My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.
Your references, mostly written by crank authors, are clearly not evidence as described by the scientific method. If any of them had been actual evidence, relativity would have been brought down... but it has not. Your own "reasoning" is not going
to rescue you from your dismal knowledge of physics.

Another appeal to authority instead of reasons because you don't know any!**************
You better go back and re-learn exactly what an appeal to authority means because this another area where your "logical" thinking is all messed up! It does not mean what you think it means.

You continue to not know what you don't know, and what you don't know is simply huge. Read that dang textbook.

If you don't like my reactions to your nonsense, you can either killfile me or quit responding, I don't care one way or another... but I call 'em and I see 'em, and from here you are just a guy who knows very little physics, if any at all. Tell, me,
what is your curriculum vitae? Does it include any physics at all?

I have tried my best to extract any reasoning or evidence from you all to no avail! I give up! You are truly PAUL THE HECKLER and nothing more. This is my final judgement. Thumbs down.****
I will continue to heckle folks who have no idea what they are talking about because it entertains me... and I wish that you really would give up, because you are going nowhere fast.
I'm giving up on you Paul, because you never respond with reasons, only with an appeal to authority, whether it is to tout your own or to knock mine without ever giving any reasons. It is remarkable that relativists are utterly unable to defend their
belief with reasoned debate. Relativity has been refuted all along from the beginning utterly and completely. Those who understand it eject it, and those who accept it don't understand it. Bye PAUL THE HECKLER.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Fri Sep 8 07:57:00 2023
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:18:01 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:12:46 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:36:16 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:56:10 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:47:04 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:09:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 11:45:33 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 9:48:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:35:26 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If light does not share the velocity of the source, then it is c-v.

No, not in this universe... you are hopelessly undereducated in these matters... hopelessly... read a dang textbook...

Paul, you might want to be careful or people will think your not a serious person.

I'm pretty confident that you are severely uneducated in physics in general and relativity in particular, and you really do need to read a dang textbook. No need to take my word for it, just ask anyone!

You lack self-awareness, as most relativists here because you are unaware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating because of de-platforming tactics. Why don't you ask the skeptics? It is the proponents who are ignorant
about it. I am confident you are severely ignorant period.

So how is it that YOU are aware of the skeptics who follow this group without participating? How would anyone know who they are, if they don't participate? Can you name a few? Perhaps you are just making this little factoid up, like a lot
of things that you claim.
You failed to answer this question.
Skeptics are always welcome to take a shot at relativity... even legitimate physicists are working to find holes in the theory, but the most that they can do is to find evidence that requires the theory to be tweaked, and this happens
routinely. However, it is sure curious that these skeptics that YOU are talking about have failed to bring relativity down even once in the last 115 years or so. Why do you suppose that this is the case? After all, any one who fells relativity would 100%
get a Nobel!

The story is that Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed "One hundred German physicists claim Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong." Einstein's reply was supposedly, "If I were wrong, it would only take one."

As always, it you do not fully understand physics to the same degree as the guy you are arguing with you have zero chance of succeeding. You simply cannot present evidence against any theory that you do not fully understand, and YOU don't
understand even 1% of what physics has to say, and probably even less than that!

If you replied: "Oh, you mean they haven't got Noble prizes because relativity functions as an ideology" there would be the slightest evidence of any comprehension on your part.

I'm not the guy here making unsupported claims, you are!

No. I support my claims with reason and evidence, and you fallaciously support yours with appeals to authority.
That is an outright lie, Crossen. You have provided zero evidence in support of your claims, whereas my claims, which are nothing more than mainstream physics theories, are supported by overwhelming evidence as published in colleges and
universities all over the world.
How weak minded can you be? Another appeal to authority. It must be because you don't know any of the reasons!********
My claims are also supported with references. Look, Paul, how are you anything but a heckler? Answer that.
Your references, mostly written by crank authors, are clearly not evidence as described by the scientific method. If any of them had been actual evidence, relativity would have been brought down... but it has not. Your own "reasoning" is not going
to rescue you from your dismal knowledge of physics.

Another appeal to authority instead of reasons because you don't know any!**************
You better go back and re-learn exactly what an appeal to authority means because this another area where your "logical" thinking is all messed up! It does not mean what you think it means.

You continue to not know what you don't know, and what you don't know is simply huge. Read that dang textbook.

If you don't like my reactions to your nonsense, you can either killfile me or quit responding, I don't care one way or another... but I call 'em and I see 'em, and from here you are just a guy who knows very little physics, if any at all. Tell, me,
what is your curriculum vitae? Does it include any physics at all?

I have tried my best to extract any reasoning or evidence from you all to no avail! I give up! You are truly PAUL THE HECKLER and nothing more. This is my final judgement. Thumbs down.****
I will continue to heckle folks who have no idea what they are talking about because it entertains me... and I wish that you really would give up, because you are going nowhere fast.
"Take no thought" PAUL THE HECKLER!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Fri Sep 8 11:23:16 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a >>>null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip >>>will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
"stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" >> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula. 3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 8 11:18:39 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
Hang on, we both agree that light speed is isotropic. That is not what is at issue. The issue is how to describe it mathematically. Is it c -v or c + v? You beg the question.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 8 11:40:25 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:59:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 11:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference, >>>> which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This >>>> part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant >>>> whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other >>>> words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The
observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving
at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept?
If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the >> one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference, >> The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."
and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?
Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything >> beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.

I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame.
The source is the "stationary or moving body" Einstein mentions. No c-v there.

Then, the source is not moving within the system. Yet the mirror is moving away making the light cover a longer distance to reach it. In the speed formula, speed= distance/time, so the speed would be c - v. How do you calculate it?

Which do you think he meant? Both?
Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some blacksmith use your head as an anvil when you were a child or something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Fri Sep 8 13:50:22 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v?
How can that work and why resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 8 20:01:31 2023
On 9/7/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:59:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 11:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of >>>>>>>> light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed >>>>>>>> as c-v for some unknown reasons.

As to your multiple other replies to my reply, they make about as much >>>>>>>> sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference, >>>>>> which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the >>>>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."
Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This >>>>>> part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant >>>>>> whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other >>>>>> words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The
observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving >>>> at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are
there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are
four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept? >>>>> If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the >>>> one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference, >>>> The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body."
and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?
Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything >>>> beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and
are trying to blame Einstein for that.

I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame.
The source is the "stationary or moving body" Einstein mentions. No c-v
there.
Which do you think he meant? Both?

When the longitudinal beam goes out to the mirror at c and the mirror moves away, what is the speed relative to the mirror considering that the mirror moved away? Is it c -v or c + v?

WHAT mirror? We're discussing Einstein's second postulate now, where he
said for his "stationary" frame, the speed of light will be measured as
c when emitted from a stationary body, and will be measured as c even if emitted from a moving body.

We cannot start discussing anything involving reflections/mirrors or
even other frames until you understand the simple meaning of the second postulate.

Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some
blacksmith use your head as an anvil when you were a child or something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 00:42:55 2023
Le 08/09/2023 à 22:50, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :

We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That
is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the
first step? c-v? How can that work and why resort to it when c + v works? Aren't
you a mathematician?

A great clinician said one day in front of his students, what we doctors
lack is first and foremost an internship as a patient.

That is to say to see things when you are on the other side of the
barrier.

He was right. One of the cruelest faults is the absence of empathy and understanding of others.

The phenomenon has worsened terribly in France since the election of Mr.
Macron (doctors are going out of business, no longer working night shifts, Sunday shifts, or Christmas shifts). We only work for profitability. The phenomenon affects everyone. The nurses try to give insulin injections
(even if the patients do not need them as in most cases), refuse serious
cases; the pharmacist is looking to sell boxes and thinks about his annual turnover...

The same goes for the physicist, who seeks glory and consecration. For the Usenet poster who wants to show that he has the biggest kiki.

Laurence asks a good question here: What is the basic principle of
relativity? How did we come to propose the invariance of c?

If we think about it carefully, we see that the idea came from Henri
Poincaré,
but it is true that he does not explain why very well. Later, Albert
Einstein, a vulgar copyist who will be shaped into a true genius of
humanity, when he was not able to solve a quadratic equation of the type x²-4x+3=0, will try to explain better, but then everything will descend
into horror.

Once Einstein wanted to explain why time was relative and light invariant,

But it must be done with correction, intelligence, modesty, and humility.

That is to say that, as this great clinician taught, one must first do an internship as a patient, before claiming to be a great genius in world
physics, without understanding anything of the theory itself, simply
because while sitting on a chair, we learned the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations by heart without understanding their meaning.

This is not reasonnable.

Doctor Hachel said that the invariance of the speed of light should not be
a direct premise, and that it should not be taught as such.

We must first start from the acceptance of spatial anisochrony in any
frame of reference: this is the dogma.

The rest is only derived from the principle.

If phonic transactions are instantaneous for the observer,
but that something plays the role of an artifact in our perceptions of it,
we must then start from the associated principle that the speed of light
is infinite in one sense and that it is equal, by nature, to 0.5c in the 'other.

A logic comes immediately: if the speed of light is infinite, for a direct observer, it is necessarily so in all frames of reference. And if an
observer sees a light ray fleeing, he will obviously see it fleeing at the
same speed in all frames of reference.

We come to all the neutral observers of all the frames of reference who
observe a phonic transaction in a transversal (or neutral) way.

It goes without saying, directly, that the transverse observable speed of
light will be equal to c.

But the primum movens is not the effect, but the principle.

And the principle is universal anisochrony, and the fact that if we can
easily match the chronotropy of two or a thousand inertial watches (they
will all beat indefinitely at the same speed), they will however never
mark the same time. .

The notion of an absolute universal present does not exist.

I thank you for your attention and perhaps for your superhuman effort to understand what my celestial greatness teaches.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Fri Sep 8 20:11:33 2023
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/7/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:59:04 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/6/2023 11:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 2:24:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote: >>>> On 9/6/2023 2:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
ually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>>>>>>
Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
You are very confused. Where is your math? You can't just decree the speed.
Einstein "decreed" the speed since it is a POSTULATE that the speed of
light was c in this frame. It is you who is trying to decree the speed
as c-v for some unknown reasons.

sense as one of Mitch's posts and are unanswerable.
Right. To postulate means to presuppose. The question is, how can it be c within any and every frame of reference?
Apparently you never read Einstein's paper.

Einstein postulates the speed of light is c in ONE frame of reference,
which he calls the "stationary" system. "Any ray of light moves in the
“stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." >>>>>> Einstein then goes to show it must be c in all inertial frames. This >>>>>> part is not a postulate.

The answer is that it must be c + v. According to the above quote Einstein said it was c - v.

Can't you read? He explicitly states it is c!

More to the point, why would Einstein have to propose a postulate for that when Galileo already explained that?
Because the speed of light was repeatedly measured as being constant >>>>>> whenever measured, regardless of the motion of the source. In other >>>>>> words, Galileo's simplification didn't apply to light.

Einstein's quote you give is very familiar and helpful in showing the problems with his ideas. It appears ambiguous.
Say what? It is perfectly clear to me! "Any ray of light moves in the >>>> “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >>>> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." The >>>> observer in the named "stationary" system measures all light as moving >>>> at c, regardless of the motion of the source it was emitted from. Are >>>> there words in his quote that you don't understand? Some of them are >>>> four syllables, is that too many for you?
The question is, does he mean the source of the ray is moving relative to the system?
Again, why are you having such difficulty with such a simple concept? >>>>> If so, that would be a different frame of reference.
???

At that point in the paper there is only ONE frame being discussed, the >>>> one named the "stationary system"
If he means the source is the system, then it is one frame of reference,
The source is, as Einstein writes, "a stationary or a moving body." >>>>> and he is correct because it obeys Galilean transformations.
He didn't state that, plus that is later shown to be wrong.
It was already known that everything maintains its speed within all frames of reference just as it does on "stationary" land as long as it moves with a uniform linear motion. Light does the same.

How can it be c unless calculated using the Galilean transformation C + V?
Nobody does that.

Did he conjure it?

He postulated that is what happens in his "stationary" frame. Everything
beyond that is derived.

I wonder if you read the quote? Why do you think that expert said Einstein used c-v?
What expert? It appears that you made up some sort of c-v garbage and >>>> are trying to blame Einstein for that.

I already explained to you the two meanings possible from his words. It could be that the source is the system (or frame) itself or something moving within the frame.
The source is the "stationary or moving body" Einstein mentions. No c-v >> there.
Which do you think he meant? Both?
When the longitudinal beam goes out to the mirror at c and the mirror moves away, what is the speed relative to the mirror considering that the mirror moved away? Is it c -v or c + v?
WHAT mirror? We're discussing Einstein's second postulate now, where he
said for his "stationary" frame, the speed of light will be measured as
c when emitted from a stationary body, and will be measured as c even if emitted from a moving body.

We cannot start discussing anything involving reflections/mirrors or
even other frames until you understand the simple meaning of the second postulate.
Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some
This post is about interferometer experiments giving isotropic light speed—that mirror.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Fri Sep 8 20:11:39 2023
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:42:58 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 08/09/2023 à 22:50, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :

We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That
is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the
first step? c-v? How can that work and why resort to it when c + v works? Aren't
you a mathematician?
A great clinician said one day in front of his students, what we doctors lack is first and foremost an internship as a patient.

That is to say to see things when you are on the other side of the
barrier.

He was right. One of the cruelest faults is the absence of empathy and understanding of others.

The phenomenon has worsened terribly in France since the election of Mr. Macron (doctors are going out of business, no longer working night shifts, Sunday shifts, or Christmas shifts). We only work for profitability. The phenomenon affects everyone. The nurses try to give insulin injections
(even if the patients do not need them as in most cases), refuse serious cases; the pharmacist is looking to sell boxes and thinks about his annual turnover...

The same goes for the physicist, who seeks glory and consecration. For the Usenet poster who wants to show that he has the biggest kiki.

Laurence asks a good question here: What is the basic principle of relativity? How did we come to propose the invariance of c?

If we think about it carefully, we see that the idea came from Henri Poincaré,
but it is true that he does not explain why very well. Later, Albert Einstein, a vulgar copyist who will be shaped into a true genius of humanity, when he was not able to solve a quadratic equation of the type x²-4x+3=0, will try to explain better, but then everything will descend into horror.

Once Einstein wanted to explain why time was relative and light invariant, he himself no longer understood the question he had asked.

But it must be done with correction, intelligence, modesty, and humility.

That is to say that, as this great clinician taught, one must first do an internship as a patient, before claiming to be a great genius in world physics, without understanding anything of the theory itself, simply
because while sitting on a chair, we learned the Poincaré-Lorentz transformations by heart without understanding their meaning.

This is not reasonnable.

Doctor Hachel said that the invariance of the speed of light should not be
a direct premise, and that it should not be taught as such.

We must first start from the acceptance of spatial anisochrony in any
frame of reference: this is the dogma.

The rest is only derived from the principle.

If phonic transactions are instantaneous for the observer,
but that something plays the role of an artifact in our perceptions of it, we must then start from the associated principle that the speed of light
is infinite in one sense and that it is equal, by nature, to 0.5c in the 'other.

A logic comes immediately: if the speed of light is infinite, for a direct observer, it is necessarily so in all frames of reference. And if an observer sees a light ray fleeing, he will obviously see it fleeing at the same speed in all frames of reference.

We come to all the neutral observers of all the frames of reference who observe a phonic transaction in a transversal (or neutral) way.

It goes without saying, directly, that the transverse observable speed of light will be equal to c.

But the primum movens is not the effect, but the principle.

And the principle is universal anisochrony, and the fact that if we can easily match the chronotropy of two or a thousand inertial watches (they will all beat indefinitely at the same speed), they will however never
mark the same time. .

The notion of an absolute universal present does not exist.

I thank you for your attention and perhaps for your superhuman effort to understand what my celestial greatness teaches.

R.H.
It is clear to everyone that the speed of light is a universal constant of nature.
It is also clear that light speed is isotropic in an IRF.
That is clearly explained by Galileo.
Relativity is not required.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 8 20:28:18 2023
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:11:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It is clear to everyone that the speed of light is a universal constant of nature.
It is also clear that light speed is isotropic in an IRF.
That is clearly explained by Galileo.

Shoddy thinking. You haven't specified the source of the light. Is it stationary in
your IRF, or is it moving? If it's NOT moving, then there's no problem, but if it's
moving then the Galilean transform gives an incorrect prediction.

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.”
― Kurt Vonnegut

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 09:11:40 2023
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a >>>null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip >>>will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
"stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous
ether" will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the
ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula. 3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 00:51:47 2023
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 09:11:43 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a
null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip
will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >> "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous
ether" will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the >> ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v
because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Why to measure when we can postulate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 11:27:59 2023
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41?PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this
behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of
reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v? How can that work and why resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?

You should understand that there is nothing to 'calculate'.
That 'c' is a property of space-time.
(and the photon being massless)

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 03:53:23 2023
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 11:28:03 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41?PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of
reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v? How can that work and why resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?
You should understand that there is nothing to 'calculate'.
That 'c' is a property of space-time.

And that some religious maniacs have postulated it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 12:01:52 2023
On 9/8/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/7/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

When the longitudinal beam goes out to the mirror at c and the mirror moves away, what is the speed relative to the mirror considering that the mirror moved away? Is it c -v or c + v?

WHAT mirror? We're discussing Einstein's second postulate now, where he
said for his "stationary" frame, the speed of light will be measured as
c when emitted from a stationary body, and will be measured as c even if
emitted from a moving body.

We cannot start discussing anything involving reflections/mirrors or
even other frames until you understand the simple meaning of the second
postulate.

This post is about interferometer experiments giving isotropic light speed—that mirror.

That may be your eventual goal, but it's not possible to discuss that
until you understand the second postulate. You have to learn to crawl
before you can learn to run. You can't discuss the mathematics of square
roots if you don't know how to add. And we cannot discuss interferometer experiments and their mirrors if you don't even understand the second postulate.

Don't you understand English? What the hell happened to you, did some
blacksmith use your head as an anvil when you were a child or something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 9 09:15:39 2023
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 18:01:57 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/8/2023 11:11 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:01:37 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/7/2023 11:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

When the longitudinal beam goes out to the mirror at c and the mirror moves away, what is the speed relative to the mirror considering that the mirror moved away? Is it c -v or c + v?

WHAT mirror? We're discussing Einstein's second postulate now, where he >> said for his "stationary" frame, the speed of light will be measured as >> c when emitted from a stationary body, and will be measured as c even if >> emitted from a moving body.

We cannot start discussing anything involving reflections/mirrors or
even other frames until you understand the simple meaning of the second >> postulate.
This post is about interferometer experiments giving isotropic light speed—that mirror.
That may be your eventual goal, but it's not possible to discuss that

Sure, until you understand at least that your ISO idiocy is no way any
Newton mode.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ken Seto@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 11:33:06 2023
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 4:27:54 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a >>>null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip >>>will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the
"stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" >> will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula. 3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the
Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always
came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

Please inform us why you can't measure the one-way speed of light.

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Sat Sep 9 11:39:59 2023
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 20:33:08 UTC+2, Ken Seto wrote:

Please inform us why you can't measure the one-way speed of light.

Because he has "natural" units, useless for measurements.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Sep 9 13:12:21 2023
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:28:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:11:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It is clear to everyone that the speed of light is a universal constant of nature.
It is also clear that light speed is isotropic in an IRF.
That is clearly explained by Galileo.
Shoddy thinking. You haven't specified the source of the light. Is it stationary in
your IRF, or is it moving? If it's NOT moving, then there's no problem, but if it's
moving then the Galilean transform gives an incorrect prediction.

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
I appreciate your acknowledgment of the ambiguity in Einstein's quote, which Volney failed to recognize. However, I would like to clarify that in the experiments cited by Roberts, I am referring to those in which the source is not in motion within the
IRF. It is reassuring to have someone who acknowledges that the Galilean transformations apply in such cases, despite Jan, Sylvia, and Volney's denial of this fact. Do you understand that this requires light to share the velocity of the source, and is
not independent of it? Otherwise, it would involve c - v, so the transverse beam would arrive later, causing a fringe shift due to the difference in velocity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sat Sep 9 13:13:09 2023
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a
null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the
source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit)
averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip
will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >> "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous
ether" will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the >> ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light
pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light
beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v
because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Ken Seto on Sat Sep 9 13:15:29 2023
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:33:08 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 4:27:54 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a
null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the >>>source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) >>>averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip
will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >> "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether"
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v
because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?
Please inform us why you can't measure the one-way speed of light.

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
I don't know why Lodder and the relativists can't do that either. They argue even against Roemer's measure of light speed as not involving one-way speed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 14:12:18 2023
On Saturday, 9 September 2023 at 22:15:31 UTC+2, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 11:33:08 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 4:27:54 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 1:43 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:03:04?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/5/2023 4:07 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a
null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second >>>postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the
source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit)
averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip
will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT >>>ANISOTROPIC.

You are really, really confused.

This is what Einstein actually said: "Any ray of light moves in the >> "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, >> whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Determined velocity c. Not c-v, not c+v, but c.

Now tell us how the phrase "The introduction of a "luminiferous ether"
will prove to be superfluous" means Einstein really used the ether concept.
Possibilities:
1. Measure the speed from the spot where the Earth was when the light
pulse began. Then, it would be c-v relative to the Earth because the longer distance gives a lower speed in the speed formula.
2. Measure light speed from the spot the Earth reaches when the light
beams combine for a possible fringe shift. Then, the speed would be c+v
because the shorter distance gives a higher speed in the speed formula.
3. Speed is claimed to be c without any explanation of how.

That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?
Please inform us why you can't measure the one-way speed of light.

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
I don't know why Lodder and the relativists can't do that either. They argue even against Roemer's measure of light speed as not involving one-way speed.

And - where do you think measurement procedures are
coming from?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 14:32:08 2023
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:28:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:11:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It is clear to everyone that the speed of light is a universal constant of nature.
It is also clear that light speed is isotropic in an IRF.
That is clearly explained by Galileo.

Shoddy thinking. You haven't specified the source of the light. Is it stationary in
your IRF, or is it moving? If it's NOT moving, then there's no problem, but if it's
moving then the Galilean transform gives an incorrect prediction.

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.”
― Kurt Vonnegut

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the ambiguity in Einstein's quote, which Volney failed to recognize.

The "ambiguity" is more in the understanding of the reader rather than what was written:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

https://web.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/Einstein1905OnTheElectrodynamicsOfMovingBodies.pdf

This is true for a wave in a medium stationary with respect to the observer. It would
also apply in the case of an entrained ether. But there are other experiments which
narrow the possibilities and remove ambiguities -- for those who want to understand.

However, I would like to clarify that in the experiments cited by Roberts, I am referring
to those in which the source is not in motion within the IRF.

The only way that would be untrivial is if you're promoting an ether theory. Unfortunately,
ether theories fail other experiments.

It is reassuring to have someone who acknowledges that the Galilean transformations
apply in such cases, despite Jan, Sylvia, and Volney's denial of this fact.

The GT only works in the tiny, special case you're admitting because there is NO transform
at all.

Do you understand that this requires light to share the velocity of the source, and is not
independent of it?

Choosing a case not requiring a transform and then claiming a particular transform is
valid removes all appeal to logic.

Otherwise, it would involve c - v, so the transverse beam would arrive later, causing a fringe
shift due to the difference in velocity.

A vapid claim unjustified by rational thought. You claim the source is not in motion and
everying's in one IRF, but then you invent a v out of thin air. Do you even have a clue about
what you're saying?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Sep 9 20:30:47 2023
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:28:20 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:11:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

It is clear to everyone that the speed of light is a universal constant of nature.
It is also clear that light speed is isotropic in an IRF.
That is clearly explained by Galileo.

Shoddy thinking. You haven't specified the source of the light. Is it stationary in
your IRF, or is it moving? If it's NOT moving, then there's no problem, but if it's
moving then the Galilean transform gives an incorrect prediction.

“If your brains were dynamite there wouldn't be enough to blow your hat off.”
― Kurt Vonnegut

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the ambiguity in Einstein's quote, which
Volney failed to recognize.
The "ambiguity" is more in the understanding of the reader rather than what was
written:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

https://web.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/Einstein1905OnTheElectrodynamicsOfMovingBodies.pdf

This is true for a wave in a medium stationary with respect to the observer. It would
also apply in the case of an entrained ether. But there are other experiments which
narrow the possibilities and remove ambiguities -- for those who want to understand.
However, I would like to clarify that in the experiments cited by Roberts, I am referring
to those in which the source is not in motion within the IRF.
The only way that would be untrivial is if you're promoting an ether theory. Unfortunately,
ether theories fail other experiments.
It is reassuring to have someone who acknowledges that the Galilean transformations
apply in such cases, despite Jan, Sylvia, and Volney's denial of this fact.
The GT only works in the tiny, special case you're admitting because there is NO transform
at all.
Do you understand that this requires light to share the velocity of the source, and is not
independent of it?
Choosing a case not requiring a transform and then claiming a particular transform is
valid removes all appeal to logic.
Otherwise, it would involve c - v, so the transverse beam would arrive later, causing a fringe
shift due to the difference in velocity.
A vapid claim unjustified by rational thought. You claim the source is not in motion and
everying's in one IRF, but then you invent a v out of thin air. Do you even have a clue about
what you're saying?
Suppose you won't refuse to understand. A velocity independent of that of the source, of course, is the opposite of Galileo and requires c - v. You must choose one or another and not pull rabbits out of hats. It is not valid for a wave. For example, a
sound wave would not cause a Doppler shift in an ambulance siren if it did not share the velocity of the source per Galileo.

I am not an ether theorist, and shared velocity is a characteristic of emission theory.

You are unaware of your reliance on Galileo. You correctly understand you can treat an IRF as stationary, yet fail to comprehend that it requires Galilean transformations. The mirror moves away from the source, requiring the light to move further. You
must perform the calculations. It is required. The velocity is not invented out of thin air. The velocity is only shared when it assumes Galileo.

At the bottom is an ambiguity in how relativists use the phrase "velocity independent of the source." If it shares the velocity, it is c + v; if not, it is c - v. Correctly speaking, the phrase ("independent") should be applied to c - v because it comes
from the ether interpretation in which it was supposed by Michelson that light did not share the velocity of the source (c - v).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 9 21:15:42 2023
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:30:49 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

I appreciate your acknowledgment of the ambiguity in Einstein's quote, which
Volney failed to recognize.

The "ambiguity" is more in the understanding of the reader rather than what was
written:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"

https://web.physics.utah.edu/~lebohec/P3740/Einstein1905OnTheElectrodynamicsOfMovingBodies.pdf

This is true for a wave in a medium stationary with respect to the observer. It would
also apply in the case of an entrained ether. But there are other experiments which
narrow the possibilities and remove ambiguities -- for those who want to understand.

However, I would like to clarify that in the experiments cited by Roberts, I am referring
to those in which the source is not in motion within the IRF.

The only way that would be untrivial is if you're promoting an ether theory. Unfortunately,
ether theories fail other experiments.

It is reassuring to have someone who acknowledges that the Galilean transformations
apply in such cases, despite Jan, Sylvia, and Volney's denial of this fact.

The GT only works in the tiny, special case you're admitting because there is NO transform
at all.

Do you understand that this requires light to share the velocity of the source, and is not
independent of it?

Choosing a case not requiring a transform and then claiming a particular transform is
valid removes all appeal to logic.

Otherwise, it would involve c - v, so the transverse beam would arrive later, causing a fringe
shift due to the difference in velocity.

A vapid claim unjustified by rational thought. You claim the source is not in motion and
everying's in one IRF, but then you invent a v out of thin air. Do you even have a clue about
what you're saying?

Suppose you won't refuse to understand.

Suppose you try to explain inventing a v when there isn't one.

A velocity independent of that of the source, of course, is the opposite of Galileo and requires c - v.

You are wrong, ether-breath. You're using two=valued logic when, in fact, there are more than two
possibilities.

You must choose one or another

You are wrong, ballistic-breath. Your brain refuses to understand multi-valued logic.

and not pull rabbits out of hats.

You mean like claiming the source is stationary and then pulling a v out of nowhere?

It is not valid for a wave. For example, a sound wave would not cause a Doppler shift
in an ambulance siren if it did not share the velocity of the source per Galileo.

Dead wrong, lame-brain. Sound waves do NOT depend on the motion of the source. It is a constant of the medium (i.e., air).

"The speed of sound depends on the medium the waves pass through, and is a fundamental
property of the material."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

You have a load of misconceptions that you need to work through before you can argue cogently.

I am not an ether theorist, and shared velocity is a characteristic of emission theory.

I am neither an etherist nor an emission theorist. I don't believe in your two-valued illogic.

You are unaware of your reliance on Galileo.

You are wrong again, two-cylinder-brain.

You correctly understand you can treat an IRF as stationary, yet fail to comprehend that it
requires Galilean transformations.

Wrong again, illogical one.

The mirror moves away from the source, requiring the light to move further.

Further relative to whom? Not to the mirror.

You must perform the calculations. It is required.

It is required to perform the CORRECT calculations, something you refuse to do.

The velocity is not invented out of thin air.

The velocity of sound is :-))

The velocity is only shared when it assumes Galileo.

Like for balls and bullets -- but light is a different animal.

At the bottom is an ambiguity in how relativists use the phrase "velocity independent
of the source."

If it shares the velocity, it is c + v; if not, it is c - v.

Complete nonsense. Ballistic theory is c +/-v. Independent means c, period.

Correctly speaking, the phrase ("independent") should be applied to c - v because it comes
from the ether interpretation in which it was supposed by Michelson that light did not share
the velocity of the source (c - v).

You don't understand what you're saying again. You seem to believe that c + v isn't the same
as c - v theoretically. You don't understand sound wave and you don't understand light waves.
Nor do you understand emission theory.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 10:13:56 2023
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was
an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to
the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 01:21:10 2023
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length,

What an impudent lie, even for a relativistic clown.
Anyway, no serious timekeeping system is treating
ISO seriously.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 06:13:57 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed
isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 06:24:16 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:14:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:28:03?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41?PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an
experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer
always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a
choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am
merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v? How can that work and why
resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?
You should understand that there is nothing to 'calculate'.
That 'c' is a property of space-time.
(and the photon being massless)

Jan
Since we agree on the isotropy how can the longitudinal beam be c on the way out to the mirror when speed= Distance + distance/ time?
See Einstein 1905,

Jan
You require deprogramming from your indoctrination. EINSTEIN PRETENDED TO NOT NEED GALILEO WHEN HE RELIED ON HIM.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 06:20:27 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:14:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:28:03?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41?PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an
experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer
always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a
choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am
merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v? How can that work and why
resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?
You should understand that there is nothing to 'calculate'.
That 'c' is a property of space-time.
(and the photon being massless)

Jan
Since we agree on the isotropy how can the longitudinal beam be c on the way out to the mirror when speed= Distance + distance/ time?
See Einstein 1905,

Jan
The only way it can be c on the Earth is if it is c + 30km/sec. THE CLAIM IT IS C RELIES ON GALILEO AND YOU CANNOT DO WITHOUT HIM. EINSTEIN WAS A PRETENTIOUS ASS.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Sun Sep 10 06:32:19 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:14:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 2:28:03?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:29:41?PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was an
experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what
the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.

The Universe sets the rules, and the rule appears to be that an observer
always measures the speed of light relative to themselves to be c. The
task for the physicist is to come with a way of describing this behaviour, which is what Einstein did.

You may not like constancy of the speed of light. You may think it's illogical, or silly, or whatever, but neither you nor anyone else has a
choice in the matter. We have to deal with the Universe as it is, not as
we think it should be.

Sylvia.
We both accept that light speed is c within an inertial frame of reference. That is what is meant by isotropy of the speed of light. I am
merely asking how relativists calculate that without using Galilean transformations. What is the first step? c-v? How can that work and why
resort to it when c + v works? Aren't you a mathematician?
You should understand that there is nothing to 'calculate'.
That 'c' is a property of space-time.
(and the photon being massless)

Jan
Since we agree on the isotropy how can the longitudinal beam be c on the way out to the mirror when speed= Distance + distance/ time?
See Einstein 1905,

Jan
Ideologies deceive by redefining words. Time is not a spatial dimension, it is a relationship comparing rates of change.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 10:13:30 2023
On 9/6/23 12:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
In his paper, Tom Roberts gives many interferometer experiments
demonstrating the isotropy of the speed of light: "What is the
experimental basis of Special Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Yes.

But one should ignore all such experiments performed with visible
light in air, as optical extinction essentially guarantees such isotropy (mentioned in the Introduction of that webpage).

I postulate Galilean transformations to explain the isotropy. The
subtractive velocity formula of Einstein does not work.

You are very confused. SR unequivocally predicts that light speed (in
vacuum) will be isotropic relative to any (locally) inertial frame.
There is no need to invoke any "subtractive velocity formula" (whatever
that is).

Part of your problem is using PARAPHRASES of Einstein's postulate. His
actual second postulate is:

Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

N.B. "stationary" is just a label, and here refers to
an ARBITRARY inertial frame.

This is talking about the one-way speed of light in vacuum. It CLEARLY
implies isotropy of that speed.

I remark that since 1905 we have learned to derive the equations of SR
without this postulate -- that permits the separation of the geometrical aspects of SR from electrodynamics.

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been
observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 10:37:42 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
In his paper, Tom Roberts gives many interferometer experiments demonstrating the isotropy of the speed of light: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Yes.

But one should ignore all such experiments performed with visible
light in air, as optical extinction essentially guarantees such isotropy (mentioned in the Introduction of that webpage).

I postulate Galilean transformations to explain the isotropy. The subtractive velocity formula of Einstein does not work.

You are very confused. SR unequivocally predicts that light speed (in vacuum) will be isotropic relative to any (locally) inertial frame.
There is no need to invoke any "subtractive velocity formula" (whatever
that is).

Part of your problem is using PARAPHRASES of Einstein's postulate. His actual second postulate is:
Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
N.B. "stationary" is just a label, and here refers to
an ARBITRARY inertial frame.

This is talking about the one-way speed of light in vacuum. It CLEARLY implies isotropy of that speed.

I remark that since 1905 we have learned to derive the equations of SR without this postulate -- that permits the separation of the geometrical aspects of SR from electrodynamics.

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts
Optical extinction means light behaves like a wave, so it would not completely confine its speed to that of the medium. Sound waves are not or there would be no Doppler effect.

Your "unequivocal prediction" requires the Galilean transformation to be true. See my new post.

Part of your problem is not using a steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity. This requires C - V because it is the opposite of sharing the velocity of the source.

The other part of your problem is you accept the assertion of Einstein's second postulate, failing to recognize it requires Galileo's c + V. Einstein's decree only holds true thanks to Galileo. Isotropy requires Galileo. You missed the whole argument.

Every observation of the Doppler shift in starlight is an actual instance of C + V and/or C - V.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 14:50:36 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/6/23 12:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
In his paper, Tom Roberts gives many interferometer experiments demonstrating the isotropy of the speed of light: "What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?" - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Yes.

But one should ignore all such experiments performed with visible
light in air, as optical extinction essentially guarantees such isotropy (mentioned in the Introduction of that webpage).

I postulate Galilean transformations to explain the isotropy. The subtractive velocity formula of Einstein does not work.

You are very confused. SR unequivocally predicts that light speed (in vacuum) will be isotropic relative to any (locally) inertial frame.
There is no need to invoke any "subtractive velocity formula" (whatever
that is).

Part of your problem is using PARAPHRASES of Einstein's postulate. His actual second postulate is:
Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
N.B. "stationary" is just a label, and here refers to
an ARBITRARY inertial frame.

This is talking about the one-way speed of light in vacuum. It CLEARLY implies isotropy of that speed.

I remark that since 1905 we have learned to derive the equations of SR without this postulate -- that permits the separation of the geometrical aspects of SR from electrodynamics.

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts
You are living proof that everyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 15:12:01 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:37:45 AM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Optical extinction means light behaves like a wave, so it would not completely confine
its speed to that of the medium. Sound waves are not or there would be no Doppler effect.

Completely false, Larry-boy. And after I posted a link for you that the speed of sound waves
are independent of the motion of their source. Tsk, tsk. I fear that you are incapable of
learning anything, let alone learning something new..

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama

Your "unequivocal prediction" requires the Galilean transformation to be true. See my new post.

You're a one-trick pony. Gasping out "Galilean transformation" at every opportunity. Your
understanding of mathematics is even less than that of physics.

Part of your problem is not using a steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent
of the source velocity. This requires C - V because it is the opposite of sharing the velocity of the source.

Dead wrong, Larry-boy. You have an impressive handle, but it's too bad you besmirch it with such
asinine assertions.

The other part of your problem is you accept the assertion of Einstein's second postulate, failing to
recognize it requires Galileo's c + V

And out comes another stupid assertion about c + v. And you don't even realize the stupidity of it!

Einstein's decree only holds true thanks to Galileo. Isotropy requires Galileo. You missed the whole
argument. Try working on your comprehension.

Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand with you, Larry-boy. You're talking at (not to) someone
who REALLY knows what he's talking about, but you're way too stupid to realize it.

Every observation of the Doppler shift in starlight is an actual instance of C + V and/or C - V.

Every time you post, Larry-boy, you prove your incompetency to understand simple math.
Neither sound nor light requires their speeds to be dependent on the motion of their sources.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 15:17:39 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts

You are living proof that everyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it.

Larry-boy, YOU are living proof that those who deny relativity are proof of their
incompetency at basic mathematics. Such amazing arrogance :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paparios@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 15:35:26 2023
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was
an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed
isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Find out what a "light year" is!!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 17:54:50 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:24:27 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:17:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts

You are living proof that everyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it.

Larry-boy, YOU are living proof that those who deny relativity are proof of their
incompetency at basic mathematics. Such amazing arrogance :-))

You need to be careful, Gary, or Crossen will label you as being a dreaded heckler, and you wouldn't want that!

"There are two kinds of hecklers: the destructive and constructive hecklers."
- John Oliver

I consider myself to be a constructive heckler because the other choice would just be mean, and there
is nothing positive about being mean. Larry-boy is probably just way undereducated and believes that
his logic will carry him to victory. He needs to read a dang textbook, and THEN ask questions!

I start out on the constructive side but become a bit negative when basic physics is ignored.
Being uneducated is not a sin, but remaining uneducated is.

I'm afraid the Persian guy had it right:

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him.
-- Persian Proverb

But hope springs eternal ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Sep 10 17:24:24 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:17:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts

You are living proof that everyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it.
Larry-boy, YOU are living proof that those who deny relativity are proof of their
incompetency at basic mathematics. Such amazing arrogance :-))

You need to be careful, Gary, or Crossen will label you as being a dreaded heckler, and you wouldn't want that!

"There are two kinds of hecklers: the destructive and constructive hecklers."
- John Oliver

I consider myself to be a constructive heckler because the other choice would just be mean, and there is nothing positive about being mean. Larry-boy is probably just way undereducated and believes that his logic will carry him to victory. He needs to

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Sep 10 18:51:31 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:54:52 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:24:27 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:17:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:50:40 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:13:44 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

Note that no actual instance of your "c+v" or "c-v" have actually been
observed -- your FANTASIES are useless.

Tom Roberts

You are living proof that everyone who accepts relativity fails to understand it.

Larry-boy, YOU are living proof that those who deny relativity are proof of their
incompetency at basic mathematics. Such amazing arrogance :-))

You need to be careful, Gary, or Crossen will label you as being a dreaded heckler, and you wouldn't want that!

"There are two kinds of hecklers: the destructive and constructive hecklers."
- John Oliver

I consider myself to be a constructive heckler because the other choice would just be mean, and there
is nothing positive about being mean. Larry-boy is probably just way undereducated and believes that
his logic will carry him to victory. He needs to read a dang textbook, and THEN ask questions!
I start out on the constructive side but become a bit negative when basic physics is ignored.
Being uneducated is not a sin, but remaining uneducated is.

I'm afraid the Persian guy had it right:

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him. -- Persian Proverb

But hope springs eternal ...

The Persian guy was just the Dunning -Kruger of his time... but he didn't need a big research project to tell us what most of us already knew!

"“Those who know the least want to be heard the most.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 19:58:48 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:51:34 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:54:52 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:24:27 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:

You need to be careful, Gary, or Crossen will label you as being a dreaded heckler, and you wouldn't want that!

"There are two kinds of hecklers: the destructive and constructive hecklers."
- John Oliver

I consider myself to be a constructive heckler because the other choice would just be mean, and there
is nothing positive about being mean. Larry-boy is probably just way undereducated and believes that
his logic will carry him to victory. He needs to read a dang textbook, and THEN ask questions!

I start out on the constructive side but become a bit negative when basic physics is ignored.
Being uneducated is not a sin, but remaining uneducated is.

I'm afraid the Persian guy had it right:

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool ... shun him. -- Persian Proverb

But hope springs eternal ..
.
The Persian guy was just the Dunning -Kruger of his time... but he didn't need a big research project
to tell us what most of us already knew!

"“Those who know the least want to be heard the most.”
― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

Ain't that the truth! And they'll never read the dang textbook.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Sep 10 20:12:03 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:37:45 AM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Optical extinction means light behaves like a wave, so it would not completely confine
its speed to that of the medium. Sound waves are not or there would be no Doppler effect.
Completely false, Larry-boy. And after I posted a link for you that the speed of sound waves
are independent of the motion of their source. Tsk, tsk. I fear that you are incapable of
learning anything, let alone learning something new..

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Your "unequivocal prediction" requires the Galilean transformation to be true. See my new post.
You're a one-trick pony. Gasping out "Galilean transformation" at every opportunity. Your
understanding of mathematics is even less than that of physics.
Part of your problem is not using a steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent
of the source velocity. This requires C - V because it is the opposite of sharing the velocity of the source.
Dead wrong, Larry-boy. You have an impressive handle, but it's too bad you besmirch it with such
asinine assertions.
The other part of your problem is you accept the assertion of Einstein's second postulate, failing to
recognize it requires Galileo's c + V
And out comes another stupid assertion about c + v. And you don't even realize the stupidity of it!
Einstein's decree only holds true thanks to Galileo. Isotropy requires Galileo. You missed the whole
argument. Try working on your comprehension.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand with you, Larry-boy. You're talking at (not to) someone
who REALLY knows what he's talking about, but you're way too stupid to realize it.
Every observation of the Doppler shift in starlight is an actual instance of C + V and/or C - V.
Every time you post, Larry-boy, you prove your incompetency to understand simple math.
Neither sound nor light requires their speeds to be dependent on the motion of their sources.
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 20:18:45 2023
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:07:20 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Interferometer experiments like the MMX but more accurate that give a null result prove light speed isotropy, disproving the second postulate.

Steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent of the source velocity.

Assuming no ether.

Accepting the longitudinal beam (in the direction of Earth's orbit) averages out to C on a round trip.

If the transverse beam obeys Galilean transformations, its round trip will be at C, MAKING LIGHT SPEED ISOTROPIC.

If it obeys the second postulate, it will be C - V, MAKING IT ANISOTROPIC.

"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

Galilean transform gives a positive additive velocity, yet the transverse beam covers a hypotenuse's lengthened path, so the increased speed matches the increased length.

Relativity uses a negative additive velocity formula (see above quote) to give a slower speed over the lengthened path.

A. GALILEAN:

sqrt C^2 + V^2; 300,000^2 + 30^2= 9.00000009^10 sqrt= 300000.0015.

C. RELATIVITY:

sqrt C^2 - V^2; 300,000^2 - 30^2= 8.99999991^10 sqrt= 299,999.9985

CONCLUSION: Light speed in relativity is anisotropic.

"These theories, in particular of relativity and the quantum of action, are both of such a highly transcendental character, bordering often on the bizarre and whimsical, as to justify an inquiry as to how far they can be regarded as science at all." -
Frederick Soddy "Address to Nobel Prizewinners" -1954

Soddy said of the discovery of radioactive decay: "...it was, and remained for long, unpopular with the then high priests of the subject..." - ibid

"Now uniformly in this whole immense advance of experimental knowledge there is nothing
whatever essentially difficult for the layman to understand... Further to hide its real origins, and to make it appear to have originated in the corkscrew brains of the mathematical physicists, its very name "radioactivity" has been changed to "nuclear
physics"!" - ibid

"...Really scientific minds like Robert Boyle, who wrote "The Sceptical Chemist", are still
rare freaks by comparison." - ibid

"to me one of the greatest dangers of the age is the pathetic belief that mathematics cannot lie, for, if misunderstood, mathematics can be the arch.-deceiver." - ibid

"So far as I know, the first attempt to attach a physical meaning to a mathematical solution,
from which the operator i had not first been eliminated from the final result, was in the
theory of relativity. This started the pretentious humbug that theory has been saddled with,
and which I think it is time to characterize as a backward step into the realm of fantasy
and mysticism, tending, if indeed not so intended, to bring science into contempt with the
layman, and a source of satisfaction only to the traditional enemies of science - dogma,
charlatanry, and obscurantism." -ibid

"The matter was summed up by the late Susan Stebbings, Professor of Philosophy in the
University of London, who, with the age-long experience of her sex of the posturing male,
remarked acidly about such writings, "All of this means just nothing at all". Viscount Samuel
(Essay in Physics, 1951)... He likens Einstein’s mode of argument to the grin of the Cheshire
Cat in Alice in Wonderland which remains behind after the Cat had vanished!" -ibid

"Whilst there is no objection urged against mathematicians doing whatever seems good to
them in their own sphere, quite definitely they should be stopped from presenting their
whims as science, let alone pretending that in the last analysis they are the real scientists." -ibid
RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY: RELATIVISTS JUST INSIST LIGHT SPEED IS C NO MATTER WHAT WITHOUT EXPLAINING HOW WITHOUT GALILEAN C + V.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 20:26:36 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:12:06 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:37:45 AM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

Optical extinction means light behaves like a wave, so it would not completely confine
its speed to that of the medium. Sound waves are not or there would be no Doppler effect.
Completely false, Larry-boy. And after I posted a link for you that the speed of sound waves
are independent of the motion of their source. Tsk, tsk. I fear that you are incapable of
learning anything, let alone learning something new..

“When you talk, you are only repeating what you already know.
But if you listen, you may learn something new.” – Dalai Lama
Your "unequivocal prediction" requires the Galilean transformation to be true. See my new post.
You're a one-trick pony. Gasping out "Galilean transformation" at every opportunity. Your
understanding of mathematics is even less than that of physics.
Part of your problem is not using a steelman of the second postulate: Light speed is independent
of the source velocity. This requires C - V because it is the opposite of sharing the velocity of the source.
Dead wrong, Larry-boy. You have an impressive handle, but it's too bad you besmirch it with such
asinine assertions.
The other part of your problem is you accept the assertion of Einstein's second postulate, failing to
recognize it requires Galileo's c + V
And out comes another stupid assertion about c + v. And you don't even realize the stupidity of it!
Einstein's decree only holds true thanks to Galileo. Isotropy requires Galileo. You missed the whole
argument. Try working on your comprehension.
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand with you, Larry-boy. You're talking at (not to) someone
who REALLY knows what he's talking about, but you're way too stupid to realize it.
Every observation of the Doppler shift in starlight is an actual instance of C + V and/or C - V.
Every time you post, Larry-boy, you prove your incompetency to understand simple math.
Neither sound nor light requires their speeds to be dependent on the motion of their sources.
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 22:34:07 2023
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no
Doppler shift would be heard.

That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been
understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic
physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 22:40:16 2023
On 9/6/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Michelson measured the speeds of the light beams in the MMX [...]
Michelson did no such thing.

You REALLY need to learn how to read, specifically in not adding your
personal fantasies and attributing them to the author of the text your
eyes happen to be traversing (what you do is CLEARLY not reading).

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paparios on Sun Sep 10 20:50:40 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was
an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't
matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an
observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to
the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed
isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Find out what a "light year" is!!!!
That's a commensuration period between a unit of time and a unit of length only confused by relativists.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paparios on Sun Sep 10 21:39:02 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It was
an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't
matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an
observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to
the observer always came out to be c.
Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done.
And next, who did those experiments that you mention,
and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed
isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Find out what a "light year" is!!!!
It is distance/speed= time= a relationship or ratio not a distance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 23:06:45 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 05:40:27 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/6/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Michelson measured the speeds of the light beams in the MMX [...]
Michelson did no such thing.

You REALLY need to learn

that The Shit is THE BEST WAY you're FORCED to!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Sep 11 02:21:47 2023
On 9/10/2023 4:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Jan

Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed >>>>> isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan

Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length,

What an impudent lie, even for a relativistic clown.
Anyway, no serious timekeeping system is treating
ISO seriously.

Sorry, toilet cleaner, but the meter is defined in terms of time, making
the meter a secondary unit. The meter is defined as the distance light
travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 02:18:01 2023
On 9/11/2023 12:39 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan

Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Find out what a "light year" is!!!!

It is distance/speed= time= a relationship or ratio not a distance.

Sorry, fool, but a light year is strictly a distance. Not a speed.

Why do you insist on making up garbage and pretending that it's true?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 02:34:31 2023
On 9/10/2023 9:20 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:14:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Since we agree on the isotropy how can the longitudinal beam be c on the >>> way out to the mirror when speed= Distance + distance/ time?

See Einstein 1905,

Jan

The only way it can be c on the Earth is if it is c + 30km/sec.

Nope. See Einstein's 1905 SR paper.

THE CLAIM IT IS C RELIES ON GALILEO AND YOU CANNOT DO WITHOUT HIM.

EINSTEIN WAS A PRETENTIOUS ASS.

You are projecting again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 10 23:42:04 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:21:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 4:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
Jan

Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed >>>>> isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length,

What an impudent lie, even for a relativistic clown.
Anyway, no serious timekeeping system is treating
ISO seriously.

Sorry, toilet cleaner, but the meter is defined in terms of time, making
the meter a secondary unit. The meter is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Still, the SI unit of length is not a second, it is a meter.
Neither JJ's insane arm waving not your wild slanders are
going to change that.
Not that anyone is treating ISO seriously, of course, anyone
can check GPS, their wannabe units are worthless when it
comes to serious measurements.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 11 11:47:48 2023
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.

That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been
understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

FYA, only for not to large values of 'several'.
Actually, predicted by Doppler 1842,
verified experimentally for the first time by Buys Ballot. (1845)
My search for the precise dates brought up this little gem, <https://muurformules.sites.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/563/2019/11/muurformule-Doppler-Buys-Ballot-e1622119958986-267x300.jpg
with the howto, complete with the formula for it.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Indeed, but he seems to be beyond hope,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 11:47:47 2023
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It
was > an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't > matter what the origin of the light was, or how the
Earth or an > observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of
light relative to > the observer always came out to be c. Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And next, who did those experiments that you mention, and why have

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world.

Yes, someone already said that in 'Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein',
so it must be true.

You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Last warning: if you can't behave in a civilised way
I'll stop replying to you altogether.

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of
understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.
Just use the one that is most convenient for the purpose at hand.

But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 11 03:22:19 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 11:47:51 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.

And as "real physicists" (i.e. JJ) understand - must be true
and indisputable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 11 10:54:20 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:40:27 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/6/23 10:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Michelson measured the speeds of the light beams in the MMX [...]
Michelson did no such thing.

You REALLY need to learn how to read, specifically in not adding your personal fantasies and attributing them to the author of the text your
eyes happen to be traversing (what you do is CLEARLY not reading).

Tom Roberts
A comparison of speeds is a measurement of speeds, so you're wrong. Try to improve your comprehension.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Mon Sep 11 11:00:53 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been
understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
What you are saying is ignorant and false. There is no way for a Doppler effect for an ambulance siren to be heard by a stationary observer if the speed of the sound is not S + V. The properties of the air causing the sound to change would not occur
without the change in frequency, which requires the sound to be moving S + V. Your basic physics is incompetent. You are pretending to know something that is not true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 11 11:01:32 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:18:06 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/11/2023 12:39 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility) >>>>
Jan

Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Find out what a "light year" is!!!!

It is distance/speed= time= a relationship or ratio not a distance.
Sorry, fool, but a light year is strictly a distance. Not a speed.

Why do you insist on making up garbage and pretending that it's true?
You miss the point as usual.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 11 11:02:33 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:34:35 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 9:20 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:14:00 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Since we agree on the isotropy how can the longitudinal beam be c on the >>> way out to the mirror when speed= Distance + distance/ time?

See Einstein 1905,

Jan

The only way it can be c on the Earth is if it is c + 30km/sec.
Nope. See Einstein's 1905 SR paper.
THE CLAIM IT IS C RELIES ON GALILEO AND YOU CANNOT DO WITHOUT HIM.
EINSTEIN WAS A PRETENTIOUS ASS.
You are projecting again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Mon Sep 11 11:08:34 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It
was > an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't > matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an > observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to > the observer always came out to be c. Again, please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And next, who did those experiments that you mention, and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world.
Yes, someone already said that in 'Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein',
so it must be true.
You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Last warning: if you can't behave in a civilised way
I'll stop replying to you altogether.

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of
understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.
Just use the one that is most convenient for the purpose at hand.

But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,

Jan
Straw man reference to Hundred Authors.

You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Relativties confusing of time and length separate the scientists from the fools.

Time is not a length. It is a relationship.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 12:39:26 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:08:37 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It
was > an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it didn't > matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an > observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to > the observer always came out to be c. Again,
please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And
next, who did those experiments that you mention, and why have we never heard about them?

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance.
(up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world.
Yes, someone already said that in 'Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein',
so it must be true.
You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Last warning: if you can't behave in a civilised way
I'll stop replying to you altogether.

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of
understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.
Just use the one that is most convenient for the purpose at hand.

But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,

Jan
Straw man reference to Hundred Authors.
You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Relativties confusing of time and length separate the scientists from the fools.

Time is not a length. It is a relationship.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
- Confucius

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Sep 11 17:15:09 2023
On 9/11/2023 2:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:21:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 4:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
Jan

Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed >>>>>>> isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec. >>
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length,

What an impudent lie, even for a relativistic clown.
Anyway, no serious timekeeping system is treating
ISO seriously.

Sorry, toilet cleaner, but the meter is defined in terms of time, making
the meter a secondary unit. The meter is defined as the distance light
travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Still, the SI unit of length is not a second, it is a meter.

Which is now a secondary unit, since it is defined by the second.

[snip drivel]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 17:25:27 2023
On 9/11/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:18:06 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/11/2023 12:39 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28 PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:14:00 UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen escribió:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance. >>>>>> (up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility) >>>>>>
Jan

Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit. >>
Find out what a "light year" is!!!!

It is distance/speed= time= a relationship or ratio not a distance.
Sorry, fool, but a light year is strictly a distance. Not a speed.

Why do you insist on making up garbage and pretending that it's true?

You miss the point as usual.

You claimed "[a light year] is distance/speed= time= a relationship or
ratio not a distance." Which is incorrect. A light year is strictly a
distance, the distance light travels in a year. Just like a mile is
strictly a distance.

Do you want to quibble what a year is? 365 days? What about leap years?
Or 365.2422 days (x 86400 seconds/day), our best measurement?

Or, since distance is measured in terms of time now, it is correct to
say that a light year is actually a distance of 1 year long? Just like a
meter is 1/299792458 seconds long?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 17:32:08 2023
On 9/11/2023 2:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of
understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.
...
But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,

Relativties confusing of time and length separate the scientists from the fools.

Yes. And it separated you as one of the fools. Go over to the left, the
right is for the scientists.

Time is not a length. It is a relationship.

It's fun to watch you foam over that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Mon Sep 11 17:36:52 2023
On 9/11/2023 6:22 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 11:47:51 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.

[But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth]

And as "real physicists" (i.e. JJ) understand - must be true
and indisputable.

You sure foamed an awful lot there. Orderly! Maciej's drool cup has
overflowed again!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 17:50:55 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:12:06 PM UTC-5, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:12:04 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Neither sound nor light requires their speeds to be dependent on the motion of their sources.
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.

Huh?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 11 22:55:37 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 23:32:12 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/11/2023 2:08 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of
understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.
...
But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,
Relativties confusing of time and length separate the scientists from the fools.
Yes. And it separated you as one of the fools. Go over to the left, the right is for the scientists.

purposes", at least some of them. You're an idiot,
so it's easy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 11 22:54:19 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 23:15:13 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/11/2023 2:42 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 08:21:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 4:21 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 10:13:59 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
Jan

Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed
isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.

In the SI the second -is- the unit of length,

What an impudent lie, even for a relativistic clown.
Anyway, no serious timekeeping system is treating
ISO seriously.

Sorry, toilet cleaner, but the meter is defined in terms of time, making >> the meter a secondary unit. The meter is defined as the distance light
travels in 1/299792458 seconds.

Still, the SI unit of length is not a second, it is a meter.
Which is now a secondary unit, since it is defined by the second.

May be secondary or not, who cares, stupid Mike.
Let's remind - yo're defending a claim that
"In the SI the second -is- the unit of length".
Do you agree with the claim? You're not THAT
stupid, are you?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Mon Sep 11 23:28:33 2023
On Monday, 11 September 2023 at 21:39:28 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:08:37 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:11:43?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:27:54?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder:
Sylvia Else <syl...@email.invalid> wrote:
[-]
That the speed is c was the starting point for all of this. It
was > an experimental result - as far as anyone could tell, it
didn't > matter what the origin of the light was, or how the Earth or an > observer on the Earth was moving, the speed of light relative to > the observer always came out to be c. Again,
please inform us how such experiments could have been done. And
next, who did those experiments that you mention, and why have

More genererally, you should get off the misconception that SR
can somehow be -derived- from experiments.
It can't, you need to postulate something,

Jan
Since you now know there have been many experiments showing light-speed isotropy, how do you explain them, by c - v or c + v?

The speed of light is 1 second/second in all directions,
or if you prefer 1 GeV/GeV,

Jan
Well, speed is distance / time not time over time and c= 300,000 km/sec.
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance. (up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility)

Jan
Time is not length in the real world.
Yes, someone already said that in 'Hundert Autoren Gegen Einstein',
so it must be true.
You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Last warning: if you can't behave in a civilised way
I'll stop replying to you altogether.

And for the amusement of others: it is always fun
to see how this trivial matter of natural units
serves as a touchstone to separate those who are capable of understanding physics from the nutters, crackpots,
and generally incompetent.

Real physicists take it in their stride: just another
and often very convenient system of units to calculate things with.

Real physicists also understand that -physical results-
cannot depend on the choice of the unit system.
Just use the one that is most convenient for the purpose at hand.

But somehow it always causes the nutters to start foaming at the mouth,

Jan
Straw man reference to Hundred Authors.
You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.
Relativties confusing of time and length separate the scientists from the fools.

Time is not a length. It is a relationship.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

It is not asserting "I have the real knowledge of
the extent of my [and everyone's else] ignorance."
as you do. That's for sure

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Sep 12 09:56:29 2023
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 9/11/2023 2:01 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:18:06?PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/11/2023 12:39 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:35:28?PM UTC-7, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 10 de septiembre de 2023 Laurence Clark Crossen:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:13:59?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, speed is distance/time not time over time and c=300,000 km/sec. >>
In the SI the second -is- the unit of length, so also of distance. >>>>>> (up to a trivial numerical constant kept for backward compatibility) >>>>>>
Jan

Time is not length in the real world. You are a pseudoscientific nitwit.

Find out what a "light year" is!!!!

It is distance/speed= time= a relationship or ratio not a distance.
Sorry, fool, but a light year is strictly a distance. Not a speed.

Why do you insist on making up garbage and pretending that it's true?

You miss the point as usual.

You claimed "[a light year] is distance/speed= time= a relationship or
ratio not a distance." Which is incorrect. A light year is strictly a distance, the distance light travels in a year. Just like a mile is
strictly a distance.

Do you want to quibble what a year is? 365 days? What about leap years?
Or 365.2422 days (x 86400 seconds/day), our best measurement?

Actually, the 'year' as in 'lightyear' is defined to be the Julian year,
so 365.25 days, so 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds (exactly)
So one lightyear is 365.25 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 299 792 458 metres (exactly)

Jan

--
God is good, he made the lightyear into a whole number of meters!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Fri Sep 15 13:03:06 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been
understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 15 16:07:03 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:03:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been
understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.

Incorrect. Stop wasting your life away pursuing projects that
you don't spend enough time to master.

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Sep 15 20:19:15 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:07:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:03:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.
Incorrect. Stop wasting your life away pursuing projects that
you don't spend enough time to master.

--
Jan
I already understand it. You don't as is proven by your inability to give any reason for your position every time you comment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 15 22:31:56 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:17 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:07:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:03:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.
Incorrect. Stop wasting your life away pursuing projects that
you don't spend enough time to master.

--
Jan
I already understand it. You don't as is proven by your inability to give any reason for your position every time you comment.

An obvious lie. You don't understand any of it. Simply impossible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Sep 16 06:11:56 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:07:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:03:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.
Incorrect. Stop wasting your life away pursuing projects that
you don't spend enough time to master.

--
Jan
THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!

ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!

SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 16 07:38:12 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 6:11:58 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:07:05 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 1:03:08 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:34:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 10:12 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
If the speed of the ambulance did not augment the speed of sound, no Doppler shift would be heard.
That is just plain not true. The Doppler shift in air has been understood for several centuries, and the speed of sound in air depends
ONLY on properties of the air, not the speed of the source.

The falsehoods and ignorance are YOURS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
The additive velocity changes the properties of the air.
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium. He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec. Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.
Incorrect. Stop wasting your life away pursuing projects that
you don't spend enough time to master.

--
Jan
THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!

ABOVE IS FOR NEGATING RELATIVE VELOCITY BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT FOR APPROACHING VELOCITY OR NEGATIVE ADDITIVE VELOCITY FOR TWO CARS AT 60mph ACH IT GIVES ZERO!!!

SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

You use a blog as proof? Really? You mean you can't find a textbook to find supporting evidence?

What you don't know is massive when compared with what you do know...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 16 18:07:11 2023
On 9/15/23 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light
speed from varying within any medium.

I did not say that -- it is not "rigid".

He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.

Of course I do. The speed of sound waves generated by an ambulance
moving with speed V relative to the air is S, the speed of sound in air.
The speed of the ambulance (V) does not affect the speed of the sound.

Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec.

Hmmmm. You CLEARLY do not understand much about basic physics. For such
a statement you MUST state the coordinates relative to which the speed
is measured (in this case the rest frame of the sun). The air in the MMX
is also moving at 0 m/s relative to the instrument and the room it is in.

Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the
air, thus moving C + V.

NONSENSE. Light moves in air with speed c/n relative to the air, where n
is the index of refraction of the air. If that air is moving relative to
some coordinates, then the speed of the light relative to those
coordinates is computed using the Lorentz composition of velocities, not

With everything you write you merely display your profound and
comprehensive ignorance of basic physics. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 16 20:32:35 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:07:23 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/15/23 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light
speed from varying within any medium.
I did not say that -- it is not "rigid".
He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Of course I do. The speed of sound waves generated by an ambulance
moving with speed V relative to the air is S, the speed of sound in air.
The speed of the ambulance (V) does not affect the speed of the sound.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec.
Hmmmm. You CLEARLY do not understand much about basic physics. For such
a statement you MUST state the coordinates relative to which the speed
is measured (in this case the rest frame of the sun). The air in the MMX
is also moving at 0 m/s relative to the instrument and the room it is in.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the
air, thus moving C + V.
NONSENSE. Light moves in air with speed c/n relative to the air, where n
is the index of refraction of the air. If that air is moving relative to some coordinates, then the speed of the light relative to those
coordinates is computed using the Lorentz composition of velocities, not

With everything you write you merely display your profound and
comprehensive ignorance of basic physics. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
I find you are utterly ignorant of physics. You have misconstrued my points. You make foolish demands. Just denying what I say is not persuasive, and countless people are seeing through relativity.
The point was, granting that the speed of sound is not added to by the speed of the source, nonetheless, the speed of the sound within the air of the MMX (and Earth) is C and relative to the sun is C + V.
Please see my new post on the most irrational claim of relativity. Your denial of this is the ignorance of relativity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 16 20:57:27 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:32:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:07:23 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/15/23 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
I did not say that -- it is not "rigid".
He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Of course I do. The speed of sound waves generated by an ambulance
moving with speed V relative to the air is S, the speed of sound in air. The speed of the ambulance (V) does not affect the speed of the sound.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec.
Hmmmm. You CLEARLY do not understand much about basic physics. For such
a statement you MUST state the coordinates relative to which the speed
is measured (in this case the rest frame of the sun). The air in the MMX is also moving at 0 m/s relative to the instrument and the room it is in.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the
air, thus moving C + V.
NONSENSE. Light moves in air with speed c/n relative to the air, where n is the index of refraction of the air. If that air is moving relative to some coordinates, then the speed of the light relative to those coordinates is computed using the Lorentz composition of velocities, not the simple addition you suppose.

With everything you write you merely display your profound and comprehensive ignorance of basic physics. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

I find you are utterly ignorant of physics. You have misconstrued my points. You make foolish demands. Just denying what I say is not persuasive, and countless people are seeing through relativity.
The point was, granting that the speed of sound is not added to by the speed of the source, nonetheless, the speed of the sound within the air of the MMX (and Earth) is C and relative to the sun is C + V.
Please see my new post on the most irrational claim of relativity. Your denial of this is the ignorance of relativity.

Crossen, you have yet to read a textbook about relativity and yet here you are, criticizing a PhD. physicist who has forgotten more physics than you will *ever* know... which only goes to to show what a complete f'ing idiot and troll you are!

Light travels at c and nothing else, regardless of your own unsubstantiated claims. What an uneducated moron you are!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 16 23:12:04 2023
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 01:07:23 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/15/23 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light
speed from varying within any medium.
I did not say that -- it is not "rigid".

You just said we're FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Sep 16 23:13:49 2023
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 05:57:29 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:32:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:07:23 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/15/23 3:03 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A REPLY TO TOM ROBERTS: If optical extinction rigidly prevents light speed from varying within any medium.
I did not say that -- it is not "rigid".
He even denies sound waves of ambulance sirens move S + V.
Of course I do. The speed of sound waves generated by an ambulance moving with speed V relative to the air is S, the speed of sound in air. The speed of the ambulance (V) does not affect the speed of the sound.
Answer: Air in the MMX is moving at 30 km/sec.
Hmmmm. You CLEARLY do not understand much about basic physics. For such a statement you MUST state the coordinates relative to which the speed is measured (in this case the rest frame of the sun). The air in the MMX is also moving at 0 m/s relative to the instrument and the room it is in.
Light moves strictly at c in that air, sharing the velocity of the air, thus moving C + V.
NONSENSE. Light moves in air with speed c/n relative to the air, where n is the index of refraction of the air. If that air is moving relative to some coordinates, then the speed of the light relative to those coordinates is computed using the Lorentz composition of velocities, not the simple addition you suppose.

With everything you write you merely display your profound and comprehensive ignorance of basic physics. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

I find you are utterly ignorant of physics. You have misconstrued my points. You make foolish demands. Just denying what I say is not persuasive, and countless people are seeing through relativity.
The point was, granting that the speed of sound is not added to by the speed of the source, nonetheless, the speed of the sound within the air of the MMX (and Earth) is C and relative to the sun is C + V.
Please see my new post on the most irrational claim of relativity. Your denial of this is the ignorance of relativity.
Crossen, you have yet to read a textbook about relativity and yet here you are, criticizing a PhD. physicist who has forgotten more physics than you will *ever* know... which only goes to to show what a complete f'ing idiot and troll you are!

Al, knowing or forgetting mad,i inconsistent mumble of some
religious maniacs is no way any advantage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 17 02:49:22 2023
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!

Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?

SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 17 01:23:08 2023
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 08:49:26 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?

If setting to 9 192 631 774 is setting to
9 192 631 770 (which is "Newton mode") -
why not, stupid Mike?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 17 10:55:01 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.
Volney, your comprehension needs work. It says "example." You can plug n the seed of light, and it negates the relative velocity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 17 11:47:44 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.
Volney, I worked it out here:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
1.5c/ 1 + 0.5/ 9^10
9^10= 3,486,784,401
0.5/ 3,486,784,401 =0.00000000014339859953
1 + 0.00000000014339859953= 1.00000000014339859953
450,000/ 1.00000000014339859953= 449,999.99993547063022075342
ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO ONE/ONE= 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.
IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
IT IS RELATIVITY.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 17 20:18:08 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.
CORRECTION:
Regarding the relativity formula negating additive velocity given above,
here is the details of an example with light:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:

u' + v
u= -------------
1 + (u'v/c^2)

u'= c
v= .5c

u' +v= 1.5c

u'v= .5c

c^2= = 1

.5c/1= 0.5c

1.5c/1.5c

ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.
IT IS LYING WITH MATHEMATICS.
IT IS RELATIVITY.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Randale Getie on Sun Sep 17 23:55:38 2023
On 9/17/2023 11:45 AM, Randale Getie wrote:

yes true. Some in polakia moved their toilet inside the house, but they
still 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁_𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗱𝗼𝗿𝘀, back in their garden, Who the fuck would want to drive
through 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝘀𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗲 named polakia??

Better than in nazified 卐ru⚡︎⚡︎ia卐, nymshifter, where nobody has any
toilets, except those who got stolen ones from Ukraine. And most of them haven't figured out that you need a sewer system and water supply to
connect them to.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 18 00:02:32 2023
On 9/17/2023 2:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.
Volney, I worked it out here:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
1.5c/ 1 + 0.5/ 9^10
9^10= 3,486,784,401

WTF??? Where did 9^10 come from????

ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO ONE/ONE= 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.

Very good. That is another way of figuring out the speed of light is c
in all inertial frames.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 18 00:04:28 2023
On 9/17/2023 1:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?

SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.

Volney, your comprehension needs work. It says "example." You can plug n the seed of light, and it negates the relative velocity.

The speed of light being 100 mph is an "example"? Example of what,
severe retardedness of the author?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sun Sep 17 22:35:02 2023
On Monday, 18 September 2023 at 06:02:36 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 2:47 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:49:26 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:11 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

THEN YOU'LL FIND THIS FORMULA NECESSARY:
NEGATE RELATIVE VELOCITY FORMULA:
u= u' + v / 1 + (u'v/c^2)

Example:
train= 100 mph= v
passenger= 5mph= u'
relative velocity= u

5 +100= 105
5x100= 500
100^2= 10,000
SO! 105/1+ (500/10,000)
105/1+ .05 OR 105/1.05= 100= u !!!!
Waitaminute, the speed of light is 100 mph?
SOURCE= "Ridiculous Mathematics of Relativity" - https://sciencevstruth.org/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

Read a real textbook, not kooksites.
Volney, I worked it out here:
What is the additive velocity or the velocity of the light beam to the stationary observer?
v= space ship velocity= 0.5c
u'= light beam leaves space ship at c in direction of the ships motion.
u= Galilean= Observer sees light moving 1.5c
u= Relativity= c
REQUIRING THE FORMULA:
c + 0.5c/ 1 + 0.5/c^2
1.5c/ 1 + 0.5/ 9^10
9^10= 3,486,784,401

WTF??? Where did 9^10 come from????

ERGO: IT AMOUNTS TO ONE/ONE= 1C REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE MOTION.

Very good. That is another way of figuring out the speed of light is c
in all inertial frames.

Sure, stupid Mike, sure. In all 0 inertial frames.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Shane Balabanoff on Mon Sep 18 12:19:47 2023
On 9/18/2023 7:37 AM, Shane Balabanoff wrote:

yes, we undrestand, that's kind of 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿_𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻.

"We", nymshifter?

Except that Russia was 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁_𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, in a time when fucking america 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀 on
spaceships, moon etc, one after another.

Wrong, nymshifter. The Soviet Union was the first in space. But the
Soviet Union is no more. It broke apart into 15 countries, one of which
is the third world country Moscovia, incorrectly calling itself Russia.
It's a good thing the Soviet Union included Ukraine, otherwise they
never would have made it into space. That's where the brains were. It's
also good the Soviet Union included Kazakhstan, which had the Soviet
Union's space port, which Moscovia still needs to launch its rockets.
Moscovia even stole the name "Russia" from the Kyivan Rus. Anyone see a
pattern here?

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