• #### The constant speed of light relies on Galilean transformations.

From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 08:48:50 2023
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 09:14:30 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Sep 10 10:05:04 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Never mind the silly "k" stuff Bill. Relativistic junk science.

--- 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 10:07:09 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
So far four relativists here have denied this asserting they can conjure up c out of thin air. They said so in my isotropy post: Jan, Volney, Sylvia Else and Gary Harnagel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Sep 10 10:08:02 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?

--- 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 10:15:10 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
Gary said, "Suppose you try to explain inventing a v when there isn't one."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 10:36:41 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?

First, the symbol "k" didn't appear in the quoted text. Second, no, your assertion is false, because (again) the speed of the bullet in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest is not B+P, it is (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Bill on Sun Sep 10 10:40:31 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:36:43 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?
First, the symbol "k" didn't appear in the quoted text. Second, no, your assertion is false, because (again) the speed of the bullet in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest is not B+P, it is (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
This really aside from the point. You do accept that it is B + P modified by a small factor so in principle you accept the point.

--- 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 10:57:58 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B. It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on
Galileo.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 11:19:58 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:40:33 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:36:43 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:08:04 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of
the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

Then, aside from k, do you accept my assertion?
First, the symbol "k" didn't appear in the quoted text. Second, no, your assertion is false, because (again) the speed of the bullet in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest is not B+P, it is (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

This really aside from the point. You do accept that it is B + P modified by a small factor so in principle you accept the point.

The factor is small only when B and P are small compared with c. When B and/or P are a significant fraction of c, the factor becomes more significant. For example, if we shoot a pulse of light forward at speed c in the frame of the car, then the speed
of the pulse in the standard inertial coordinates of the street is (c+P)/(1 + Pc/c^2) = c(1 + P/c) / (1 + P/c) = c.

--- 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 13:48:35 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V. To remove this ambiguity let us define:
1. C + V= shares velocity of the source= Galilean properly= additive velocity formula.
2. C - V = does not share velocity of the source= "Galilean" subtractive velocity formula.

--- 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 13:55:44 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
If independent of the source velocity mans C + V it would completely agree with the first postulate and give a constant speed of c within any IRF.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 14:18:32 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.

Hahahaha! "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 14:20:01 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:05:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. [The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet
is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually (B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).
Never mind the silly "k" stuff Bill. Relativistic junk science.

No, you merely don't understand this. It happens.
Just find something else for a hobby.

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Bill@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Sep 10 16:25:37 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...

There is no ambiguity in special relativity. All massless energy, including electromagnetic radiation, propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the source. Note that
standard systems of inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, not Galilean transformations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 23:47:30 2023
Le 11/09/2023 à 01:25, Bill a écrit :
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...

There is no ambiguity in special relativity. All massless energy, including electromagnetic radiation, propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the
source. Note that standard systems of inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz
transformations, not Galilean transformations.

LOL.

You don't take risks.
Looks like a post from a woman.
Just as we say "it's a woman's crime", we say "it's a woman's post".

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Sep 10 18:47:07 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 4:47:33 PM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 11/09/2023 à 01:25, Bill a écrit :
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:48:38 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen
wrote:
The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has
been used very ambiguously...

There is no ambiguity in special relativity. All massless energy, including
electromagnetic radiation, propagates in vacuum at speed c in terms of every
standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the
source. Note that standard systems of inertial coordinates are related by Lorentz
transformations, not Galilean transformations.
LOL.

You don't take risks.
Looks like a post from a woman.
Just as we say "it's a woman's crime", we say "it's a woman's post".

R.H.

Light can move by its own speed toward or away from a moving frame...

--- 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 22:17:58 2023
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.

approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before

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 22:24:09 2023
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.

Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts

--- 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 20:39:08 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
Either the second postulate means light speed is always C in an IRF, or it means light speed does not share the velocity of the source.
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Sep 10 20:52:18 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts

One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory,
it's brief, that "the reference frame is going at c",
so that either way, light's speed is thus zero,
then light starts as from zero together, that
light is free whence it's emitted or reflected.

It's like "Doppler's paradox: why don't objects
blink red-shift/blue-shift visibly if they do at all",
now I point out some ridiculous writing out the formal
"a paradox of the Doppler effect, why aren't objects
moving one way visible and the other way invisible",
if they differ at all according to the Doppler effect.
Usually expressed in echoes, relating the Doppler
effect to that it's in effect, that the relatively moving
bodies combined emissions are what reflect off of it,
and what it's actively emitting, separately, that
light has sources and combines while images carry,
that in any direction there's an image.

So, with Light Speed Rest Frame Theory then for
"and now relate all the zero speed light to the outside
frame", then is the sort of the Rest Exchange Momentum,
theory, with the velocity of the frame, each moving
body, with respect to each other.

So, I'm sort of bound to point that out because it's like
"we have to find at least one person who told us so".

Anyways, I use those brief formalisms to otherwise
contain all sorts most the transformations that happen
in atomic time, regular time, vis-a-vis nuclear time,
where "atomic time is in seconds", "nuclear time is like geological time".
The theories are like this where the atomic forces for the electron physics, the strong nuclear force, has that then the "geological time"
or the nuclear time, is that the lifetime of atomic particles are in
nuclear and "radio activity, microwave", which is in the electrical
field called packet radio and terrestrial packets.

I.e., the light and the overall frame called the geodesy
whatever it has, is after emission and the diffusive,
then light just going along in all directions then that
there's one instant, exactly one instant, when
light, at exactly one "point", reflects, with respect
to where it is reflected wrather than exchanged.
The idea is that in the theory then that's governed
by time.

Then, there's that while reflection and image is mostly
reflection, there is also exchange, and what results
explaining the doppler, as what when the lighthouse
spins around, it crosses all the surrounds, and while
it's in effect the beam briefly,
it comes and goes as from a different frame.
(The inertial system reflecting or emitting.)

In this manner I insulate myself from most all arithmetic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 10 22:03:05 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V" or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts

One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Sep 10 22:46:44 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V" or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?

Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sun Sep 10 23:02:51 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".

It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 11 10:53:01 2023
Le 10/09/2023 à 18:14, Bill a écrit :
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence+50IQ wrote:
A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car.
[The car is moving at P=10 mph in the frame of the street, and the bullet
is moving at B=1000 mph in the frame of the car.] The speed of the bullet >> is B + P in the frame of the street.

Not true. The speed of the bullet in the frame of the street (meaning in terms
of the standard inertial coordinates in which the street is at rest) is actually
(B+P)/(1 + BP/c^2).

Yes, but only in the case where the bullet is ejected forward, therefore
in the direction (cos µ =1) of the movement.

I recall the general equation for the addition of velocities that I gave yesterday, valid for all imaginable velocities and angles.

<http://news2.nemoweb.net/jntp?pPu5gd7xjDwxrg6kWuvjEVuNGhI@jntp/Data.Media:1>

N.B. It is absolutely forbidden to copy, or distribute without my authorization, this equation and this image file under penalty of
complaint before the international court in The Hague for plagiarism and infringement of copyright. The offenders risk very big to rub against me.
We don't joke with Doctor Hachel, I prefer to immediately warn potential plagiarists or science delinquents.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 12:56:38 2023
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?

You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!

If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Sep 11 11:19:30 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?
You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!

If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.

--- 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 11:15:27 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V. That is why your
understanding is very ignorant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 11 11:41:05 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.

There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws", that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 17:10:02 2023
On 9/11/2023 2:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?
You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!

If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.

Wrong.

Since we best not assume absolute space,

Nobody (except yourself and other confused cranks) assumes that.

[remainder snipped as irrelevant]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Sep 11 16:42:01 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:19:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:56:42 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/10/2023 11:39 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?
You contradict yourself twice in one sentence!

If it[light speed] is always C, it must be C.
If it[light speed] does not share the velocity[of the source], it must be C.
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space. Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.

If the universe has a current size it is an absolute space of itself that could only expand.
If light has a constant speed it would look accelerated arriving
at a slow time rate fast space ship.
Slow time would make light speed c appear faster.
Even atoms would appear faster around you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Mon Sep 11 21:46:54 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the
contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory",
otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and
Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws", that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer, than how it's outlaid to be.

It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Sep 13 18:30:12 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking",
"tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic, and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws", that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but, at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer, than how it's outlaid to be.
It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".

Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?

Either way it's considered "least action".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Sep 14 10:56:59 2023
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase "independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame
together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction"
besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space
terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction, for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic, and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after
reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?

Either way it's considered "least action".

v^2, c^2, ....

It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Sep 14 11:51:51 2023
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory,
including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed,
so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds
the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of
light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction, for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?

Either way it's considered "least action".
v^2, c^2, ....

It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.

The point is that v and c are differential, so in v^2 and c^2 are also
out their power terms, both that "squared and, it's still in the limit",
and, "squared, and, rest outside the limit".

That it's both of them, then it's a minimizing principle that they're the same in the limit.

That is, in v and v^2, where "v relates more to a it's differential and d its distance than it's square",
also that "light speed's is in the geodesy's space terms", that by definition, light in relativity,
also ways goes along the geodesy which is exactly what any space-time "curvature", is, locally.

So, c^2 the ratio, goes out in diffusive terms, that there's both boundaries through the pressure law,
pressure's I suppose most usual, v^2, c^2, and pressure.

So, the terms, result linear, rotations in momentum, axle fixed.

Then, "torque is static", is while the classical law preserves applied momentum,
that momentum is now a spatially wave term, over time its application,
what it involves in terms of mass and velocity, and mass and light's velocity.

Then, it's kept fixed under the terms, that in algebra "these terms say c^2 and v^2,
and those terms say c^2 and v^2, and this is mass and light", that it lives under derivations,
why all a usual eigenmoment, also is same in its pressure terms.

Then, "torque is static, pressure is classical", compared to "torque is classical",
is torque and virtual torque and applied pressure, what results for momentum and push.

So, for the classical and the solution for the ramp, is that the uphill ramp, is like for classical, for example, and downhill, with ramp, pressure, and tipping,
that pressure usually is the kinetic impulse while also it's the diffusion pressure.

So, superclassical models like fall gravity and impulse pressure make "impulse pressure's frames are waves".

Then, "impulse pressure", is my new addition, fall gravity and impulse pressure,
helping relate the true centrifugal and centripetal, as usally about centers of pressure,
and centers of rotation. (Or voids.)

The idea to make a stochastic or quantum, the impulse, today is
"there are two paths: the same path is faster, and another path".
The idea is that in time everything goes its path, that decisions in
time come downstream in time.

Then, impulse pressure, is that "all the impulses also live in a pressure space". It's both a space with pressure, and, a space of impulses as pressures.

So, it's usual nothing changes in formula.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu Sep 14 12:18:37 2023
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory, including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone", as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed, so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the
relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame
Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame
is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio
but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around,
which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave",
for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and
they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ...,
"momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv. I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines, about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?

Either way it's considered "least action".
v^2, c^2, ....

It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.
The point is that v and c are differential, so in v^2 and c^2 are also
out their power terms, both that "squared and, it's still in the limit", and, "squared, and, rest outside the limit".

That it's both of them, then it's a minimizing principle that they're the same in the limit.

That is, in v and v^2, where "v relates more to a it's differential and d its distance than it's square",
also that "light speed's is in the geodesy's space terms", that by definition, light in relativity,
also ways goes along the geodesy which is exactly what any space-time "curvature", is, locally.

So, c^2 the ratio, goes out in diffusive terms, that there's both boundaries through the pressure law,
pressure's I suppose most usual, v^2, c^2, and pressure.

So, the terms, result linear, rotations in momentum, axle fixed.

Then, "torque is static", is while the classical law preserves applied momentum,
that momentum is now a spatially wave term, over time its application,
what it involves in terms of mass and velocity, and mass and light's velocity.

Then, it's kept fixed under the terms, that in algebra "these terms say c^2 and v^2,
and those terms say c^2 and v^2, and this is mass and light", that it lives under derivations,
why all a usual eigenmoment, also is same in its pressure terms.

Then, "torque is static, pressure is classical", compared to "torque is classical",
is torque and virtual torque and applied pressure, what results for momentum and push.

So, for the classical and the solution for the ramp, is that the uphill ramp,
is like for classical, for example, and downhill, with ramp, pressure, and tipping,
that pressure usually is the kinetic impulse while also it's the diffusion pressure.

So, superclassical models like fall gravity and impulse pressure make "impulse
pressure's frames are waves".

Then, "impulse pressure", is my new addition, fall gravity and impulse pressure,
helping relate the true centrifugal and centripetal, as usally about centers of pressure,
and centers of rotation. (Or voids.)

The idea to make a stochastic or quantum, the impulse, today is
"there are two paths: the same path is faster, and another path".
The idea is that in time everything goes its path, that decisions in
time come downstream in time.

Then, impulse pressure, is that "all the impulses also live in a pressure space". It's both a space with pressure, and, a space of impulses as pressures.

So, it's usual nothing changes in formula.

) "It's taboo in school, or nobody bucks .999, but really it's the truth."
) "In fact, not even the formulas change and it's in effect.
Both it has no demonstration and the formulas are the same."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Thu Sep 14 12:34:10 2023
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:39:11 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:48:53 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The bullet and police car.

Bullet= B= 1,000 mph
Police car= P= 10 mph

A bullet is shot from the back seat straight out the front of the car. What is the speed of the bullet compared to the car? 1,000 mph.
Why? Because it is B + P compared with the street.
IN THE SAME WAY, LIGHT SPEED IS C ONLY IF IT IS C + V.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD FALL BACK C - V.

THEREFORE, THE SECOND POSTULATE IS BASED ON GALILEAN C + V.
Either the second postulate means light speed is always C in an IRF, or it means light speed does not share the velocity of the source.
If it is always C, it must be C + V; if it does not share the velocity, it must be C - V. Which is it?

You don't understand this.

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 15 17:15:03 2023
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is
stationary, requiring absolute space.

Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true --
HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to

Tom Roberts

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From JanPB@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 15 16:05:16 2023
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.

No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your
confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.

Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.

No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really

That is why your understanding is very ignorant.

You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Sep 15 18:41:07 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Your "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.

--
Jan

Einstein let's that "SR is local" if though "I can't correct everybody who reads my 1905,
but I do for those reading 'Out of My Later Years'".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Sep 15 19:59:42 2023
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 12:18:40 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 11:51:54 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:57:01 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:30:15 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:46:57 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:41:07 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:46:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:03:08 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:52:21 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:24:21 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 3:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Objective: The phrase "independent of the source" for the velocity of
light has been used very ambiguously, sometimes meaning C + V and
sometimes C - V.
Apparently you are unable to read simple English (or the equivalent German).

In Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is c, and never "C+V"
or "C-V". Presuming you mean V to mean the speed of the source, this
OUGHT to be obvious, because that is precisely what the phrase
"independent of the source" says (in this context).

You REALLY need to learn how to read, and how to think and apply basic
logic. In addition to learning basic math and physics.

Tom Roberts
One day I invented "Light Speed Rest Frame" theory...

So, how is this working out for you, so far?

Any takers?
Well what it does is make that everything non-optical,
isn't limited in the other side of the theory, at all.

In so few words it's "... the theories", it's a convention.

The Light Speed Rest Frame theory, then, is the theory, including that light's speed is a constant, where all the contributions to light, start their geodesy as in a rest frame.

This is that however light passes through a point, which
of course is exactly one time before reflections,
it's as in the rest frame of the point that it is in.

Here then the idea is that "because the moving emitter
it was emitted from, has left the rest frame".

So, the convention, is to ignore the relativistic, except
to result that bodies moving together, are in a rest frame together, and that though light's tachyonic and "already gone",
as if "light's speed is always slowing down from light speed, so, the objects are the same if the lights are out".

Then, all it does is sort of reverse the convention,
of the difference V and C. (v and c). It's that the relativistic falls away, as V goes to C, instead of going
to infinity that it goes to zero, as if it was moving space,
a frame, moving through space, at arbitrary
velocity V, for a given constant velocity C.

So, it's mostly just a tiny sign-convention bit, "the theory", otherwise it's pretty usual "Galileans and Lorentzians and Lagrangians" though I have it also with "space contraction" besides "as Einstein says", the "Light Speed Rest Frame Theory" is a special relativity, but its postulate is
strong as "light's speed is a constant and as breaking", "tachyonic", then that "its rest frame" is just as it proceeds the light, it's light-like, and that the moving box or frame is seeing leaving it as with velocity zero, then in terms of light of course, it's still free of the moving frame and any kind
of contrived observable, in what orbits if not parting and meeting.

In that sense it's already plenty successful, and when I think about it I've reduced it to that, then that it's braggadocio but somebody has to braggadocio or nobody is.

So, it's as simple as "GR and SR not the other way around, which is a reading of Einstein", "SR is local", ..., it's giving
a mathematical convention to "SR is local".
It's like "is light's speed infinite" and it's like
"it's like a wave that goes once around each instant, yes, infinite".

This way it's a pretty toy theory that sits on "SR is local", but any derivation
that adapts its convention, is in the theory, and when anything's different
c/v and c-v, 1 or 0, one or the other outside, it starts outside, so it's in effect
the theory, what it is.

So, it is what it is. (There's not much to it.)

Then the rest exchange momentum is more "momentum is a wave", for putting angular and linear momentum together, that in space terms, that the space gets moving when things get moving, and they go along together, the space, the object, and the frame.

It just is what it is, I very much approach it that "Einstein is a
model grandiose hedge".

Of course that's not same "momentum is conserved", ..., "momentum is a wave", "rest exchange momentum". It fits
with space contraction though, what it is.
There are some few things in instruction that results dissatisfaction,
for some.

For example ".999..." and whether real numbers have a clock arithmetic,
and "curved space time falling apart instead of continuous", these are
just sorts of examples that demand a sort of satisfaction, that leaves
other demands unfilfilled.

So, I feel the same way about momentum or 1/2 mv^2 after inertia mv.
I need to better understand moments, and above our simple machines,
about why momentum, works out, about classical motion, and after reading Einstein's "Out of My Later Years" and his combined defense
and attack on Newton, that there are really some "Newton's Zero-eth laws",
that then momentae get treated as a wave and help to solve the problems
of the classical mechanics.

Of course it's not so usual, about torque as the moment and statics, but,
at the same time, is to help advise that the classical is the bit richer,
than how it's outlaid to be.
It's like when centrifugal force is introduced, and it's like "do you know what
centrifugal force is?" and it's like "yeah, it's the merry-go-round" then there's
a demonstration of spinning-the-pail and then "now it's forbidden to call that
centrifugal force, it's centripetal force, and here's its derivation, the centrifugal
force or true centrifugal here is virtual and it's modeled in the centripetal".

And it's like, "but next door in chemistry those are centrifuges". So, with regards
to being axial or radial, centripetal or centrifugal, is for helping explain the difference
among centripetal and centrifugal, which I don't fully understand, then these days
it's that "like other 'virtual' forces in the potential, the true potential is true centrifugal",
to help clear up where it's right what is one or the other, or neither, or one or the other.

They're opposites and the same place the same value only differing in sign, about the
whether what gives is the pail or the arm.

So anyways I think momentum is hard to grasp, and part of that is the acceleration
is hard to grasp, by that meaning "there's no sort of dead-reckoning accelerometer",
that these days there are micro-devices that are effective accelerometers, that otherwise
without "outside" forces it sort of doesn't exist, and differences with Newton's first and second
laws. That it sort of doesn't exist "in the theory".

Thusly it seems like I have to think about meeting and parting for acceleration, besides
velocity, to reflect what are changes, as then for "principle of least action" and Newton's
usual first and second laws as a special case of dynamics under "acceleration, lack thereof",
for example in a "weightless" environment.

So, the "rest exchange momentum", theory, is the momentum is like a wave, and so it
extends from acceleration and deceleration linearly, then as about how it extends in
the rotationally, what makes the gyroscope effect, as holding up its weight.

Anyways so that's why I attach those as what result also classical is that then those
are also classical in results the phenomenon, various notions in motion, and projection,
basically looking to explain motion as "wave-like" as "persistence of velocity", in what
seems to be a reflection on "Newton's zero-eth laws", with the usual classical in the
middle of what's the sum of potentials ("true centrifugal").

So I've heard of this vierbein formalism about infinite limits above eigensystems,
just to make it so that writing the formalisms would result a sort of "operator calculus
over a stopping derivative results a vierbein with an eigensystem the Lagrangian,
Hamiltonian, and Laplacian, etcetera", basically look at "the infinitely many higher
orders of acceleration" and what that means for moments, or, local minima, and,
momentum, or dead weight reckoning, and "Newton's zero-eth laws".
Is it "conservation of momentum": or "minimization of work"?

Either way it's considered "least action".
v^2, c^2, ....

It's rotational from the moment if dynamical at all.
The point is that v and c are differential, so in v^2 and c^2 are also
out their power terms, both that "squared and, it's still in the limit", and, "squared, and, rest outside the limit".

That it's both of them, then it's a minimizing principle that they're the same in the limit.

That is, in v and v^2, where "v relates more to a it's differential and d its distance than it's square",
also that "light speed's is in the geodesy's space terms", that by definition, light in relativity,
also ways goes along the geodesy which is exactly what any space-time "curvature", is, locally.

So, c^2 the ratio, goes out in diffusive terms, that there's both boundaries through the pressure law,
pressure's I suppose most usual, v^2, c^2, and pressure.

So, the terms, result linear, rotations in momentum, axle fixed.

Then, "torque is static", is while the classical law preserves applied momentum,
that momentum is now a spatially wave term, over time its application, what it involves in terms of mass and velocity, and mass and light's velocity.

Then, it's kept fixed under the terms, that in algebra "these terms say c^2 and v^2,
and those terms say c^2 and v^2, and this is mass and light", that it lives under derivations,
why all a usual eigenmoment, also is same in its pressure terms.

Then, "torque is static, pressure is classical", compared to "torque is classical",
is torque and virtual torque and applied pressure, what results for momentum and push.

So, for the classical and the solution for the ramp, is that the uphill ramp,
is like for classical, for example, and downhill, with ramp, pressure, and tipping,
that pressure usually is the kinetic impulse while also it's the diffusion pressure.

So, superclassical models like fall gravity and impulse pressure make "impulse
pressure's frames are waves".

Then, "impulse pressure", is my new addition, fall gravity and impulse pressure,
helping relate the true centrifugal and centripetal, as usally about centers of pressure,
and centers of rotation. (Or voids.)

The idea to make a stochastic or quantum, the impulse, today is
"there are two paths: the same path is faster, and another path".
The idea is that in time everything goes its path, that decisions in
time come downstream in time.

Then, impulse pressure, is that "all the impulses also live in a pressure space". It's both a space with pressure, and, a space of impulses as pressures.

So, it's usual nothing changes in formula.

) "It's taboo in school, or nobody bucks .999, but really it's the truth."
) "In fact, not even the formulas change and it's in effect.
Both it has no demonstration and the formulas are the same."

So, I wonder how to frame "rest exchange momentum", and the idea seems to reflect velocity, in both of two ways: meters per second and seconds per meter.

This is where, usually when one or the other equals zero, one over that would be infinity,
so, the singular solutions when differences go to zero, can be framed over either way,
because a singularity theory, is just multiplicity theory with maybe a branch, or maybe
none, "undefined", "indeterminate quantities", "not a number".

The higher orders of acceleration after impulse and applied force, then get into the
usual notions of the differential, and about how everything's differential and everything's parameterized by time. Taking the derivative of positive powers drops it to zero, and everybody knows v = dp/dt, the _instantaneous_, rate. Taking the anti-derivative of negative powers comes up to lnx then x(lnx -1). The idea is that these these go _over_, what's called this "stopping derivative",
that parameterizes in effect what is the omnipotential on one side, and, the unidirectional impulse on the other side, in various configurations of experiment.

So, it's kind of like a lobe of a radial basis function on one side, and a Dirac impulse
the other, basically this notion of "a mother wavelet in impulse pressure", the either side of the conservation actual/potential.

(One time I wrote an expression "mother of all wavelets", there are others.)

Thusly, this sort of approach in Newton's zero-eth laws, is about making for besides just the usual theorems of the incidence and reflection, the overall kinetic assembly of the angular rotation, about meeting and parting, besides orbiting and de-orbiting, and not dropping and colliding, or Newton's apple, courtesy Galileo.

So, in this manner I consider how to make it so that there's quite simply then for
usual models of a sort of waves, if only just representing superposition of states
in the classical, that of course there's potential in energy in all such configurations
of that, as that the ball does indeed bounce not just incident, but off the spring it is.

This sort of thing is visible in slow-motion video. (Or if you ever "crushed" it.)

--- 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 20:19:08 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is
stationary, requiring absolute space.
Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true --
HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to

Tom Roberts
You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Sep 15 20:18:56 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Your "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.

--
Jan
You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 15 22:31:45 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is
stationary, requiring absolute space.
Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true --
HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.

Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity, I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.

That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require, that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)

Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".

I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large, and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.

So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space, those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant,
a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side, on the one side a pointer the other a sink.

Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it. Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does,
safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together
any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor
is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that
big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.

So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to JanPB on Fri Sep 15 22:37:38 2023
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 01:05:18 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.

Only such an idiot can believe such an absurd lie.
And why does the trick work only with speed of
"light"? Why not with the speed of "sound,", for instance?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 16 02:19:59 2023
On 9/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

That is why your understanding is very ignorant.

You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.

You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.

Just because you don't have what it takes to understand the subject
doesn't make it pseudoscience. It simply means you don't even have the
not much understanding necessary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Fri Sep 15 23:54:24 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.

That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)

Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".

I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.

So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant, a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.

Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it. Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does,
safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together
any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor
is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.

So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".

A Gabor about Dirichlet and Birkhoff....

"There's more than one."

"Pseudomoments: combine the notion of moment and metric, ...".

Some theorems of Ramsey get decidable in "square Cantor space".

Some conjectures in number theory get independent, ....

Enjoying a "Dynamical versions of Hardy's Uncertainty Principle: A survey", of Fernandez-Bertolin and E. Malinnikova.

It's like "yeah, everybody knows Fourier these days. Or maybe wavelets."
One or the other to set up functions as either side transforms for convolution,
with wavelets as the sort more modern, while Fourier for the usually linear.

Phys.Rev. A 1973?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Sep 16 06:27:09 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Your "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.
This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 16 07:03:23 2023
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 08:20:02 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 11:18 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

That is why your understanding is very ignorant.

You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.
You accept it on faith. It doesn't take much to understand the subject is pseudoscience.
Just because you don't have what it takes to understand the subject

Sure, sure, just because he doesn't understand that setting
to 9 192 631 774 is setting to 9 192 631 770... Or that
he's FORCED to THE BEST WAY.....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to JanPB on Sat Sep 16 06:32:26 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
Your "logic" is incorrect, your facts are WRONG, and your entire approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

NB: This is NOT how virtually all modern textbooks do it, hence your confusion. The modern approach is logically equivalent and is
faster but it's also IMHO an absolute _pedagogical_ disaster.
Since we best not assume absolute space, we must start with Newton's first law of motion and Galileo's shared velocity requiring C + V.
No, this is incorrect. You need to understand what this is really
That is why your understanding is very ignorant.
You don't get the ticket to play until you learn the subject.

--
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 EACH 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 Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 16 09:32:17 2023
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:54:27 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.

That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)

Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".

I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.

So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant,
a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.

Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it. Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does, safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.

So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".
A Gabor about Dirichlet and Birkhoff....

"There's more than one."

"Pseudomoments: combine the notion of moment and metric, ...".

Some theorems of Ramsey get decidable in "square Cantor space".

Some conjectures in number theory get independent, ....

Enjoying a "Dynamical versions of Hardy's Uncertainty Principle: A survey", of Fernandez-Bertolin and E. Malinnikova.

It's like "yeah, everybody knows Fourier these days. Or maybe wavelets."
One or the other to set up functions as either side transforms for convolution,
with wavelets as the sort more modern, while Fourier for the usually linear.

Phys.Rev. A 1973?

Of course there are already such notions of "replete continuity".

Aristotle's - line continuity - Jordan measure - "infinitesimals", "differential",
Eudoxus' - field continuity - standard
Nyquist's - signal continuity - Dirichlet function / Dirichlet problem

The "complete metrizing ultrafilter" usually stands out as one of the other
of the line continuity or signal continuity, also.

So, these things existing alongside the "standard", though, are still, "inconsistent multiplicities",
or in brief hypocritical, from the derivations of the fundamental theorems of the standard.
Then, when they're called "non-standard" mostly it's "Jordan measure's called Jordan content
because otherwise it would be standard infinitesimals", and "Dirichlet function is in the everywhere
discontinuous functions though though gets into analytical character".

So, when I say "replete continuity", these at least three definitions of continuity or
line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity, I expect them all to arise from
the foundations and the formalism and the axiomatics as one sort of overall consistent
formalism. Then, it's as they do, and fundamentally, equipping the rest of mathematics.

These days then often the issues in symmetry-flex or about varying definitions of
completeness under some "overcompleteness" for example, are referred to as "Dirichlet problem", then that things like "quasi-invariant measure theory" and
as well such notions as the "pseudo-differential", arrive at that most treatments
of the nonlinear and quantum in effect, arrive at setups of various "Dirichlet problem".

Then, this automatically equips continuity laws with an overall deconstructive account,
of, mathematically, various "effects" or tendencies and propensities of continuous quantities.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Sat Sep 16 10:22:14 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 9:32:20 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:54:27 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:31:48 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:19:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 3:15:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 9/11/23 1:15 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
Nope. You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true -- HOPELESS. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before attempting to

Tom Roberts
You can pretend I am guessing if you like. It is you who knows math and is foolish in physics.
Well, if you don't know at least three definitions of mathematical continuity,
I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to get figured how there's a "rational" quantum
mechanics after a continuum mechanics.

That is to say, what's invariance and conservation law, arises as from "continuity
laws", where there's more than one definition of continuity, then symmetry-breaking
breaks down into various notions of symmetry-flex, and such notions being discussed
as partners and virtual particles, and supersymmetry, seem to sort of require,
that mathematics needs as much renovation as physics. (Mathematics "owes" physics, ....)

Of course you might aver "it's fine the way it is" and that's fine, and I'm not much
of a detractor, but it's all part of "Hilbert's Infinite Living Museum of Mathematics,
now with a science wing".

I'm reading a book. It's from "the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications".
It's "Radar and Sonar". It describes the grating lobes, of a signal, as, "very narrow",
extrema of a Dirichlet function, which of course is parameterized quite large,
and describes that Gabor widths are sometimes infinite.

So, for example, with regards to pulse trains and the relativistic, there really
is something that can be said via, for example, "impulse pressure", "in a world
one side for the impulse and pulse, and the radial basis of bump on the other
side for the volume element of the pressure space, for example a vacuum space,
those laying a neat boundary that's also a continuum function, or invariant,
a directional primitive in a relativistic world, with area one on either side,
on the one side a pointer the other a sink.

Physics here of course is "mathematical physics" and about reduces to it.
Surely where the mathematics doesn't suffice the empirical only does, safely that's not necessarily the goal, where "the fundamental", "the foundation",
of course is the goal. So, empirical theory of course can paste together any assemblage. That said, something like "just add an anti-particle in anti-time",
when otherwise "things broke", is only an ad hoc conceit and its metaphor
is at best tenuous: there is no "negative time" (or, "time invariant has never
been falsified"), blaming mathematics for misconstrued metaphor isn't that
big a deal. I.e., Feynman's "negative time" is not apropos, just like neither
is dark matter: it's a placeholder for collective lack-of-sense in the unscientific.
Agreeably they're, agreeable metaphors: they only first fulfill what they refute
then drop out: it's just to be said there's no physical interpretation of them:
that always satisfies.

So, I brought a giant meter-stick from mathematical foundations,
where I'll be estimating additions, called "replete continuity".
A Gabor about Dirichlet and Birkhoff....

"There's more than one."

"Pseudomoments: combine the notion of moment and metric, ...".

Some theorems of Ramsey get decidable in "square Cantor space".

Some conjectures in number theory get independent, ....

Enjoying a "Dynamical versions of Hardy's Uncertainty Principle: A survey",
of Fernandez-Bertolin and E. Malinnikova.

It's like "yeah, everybody knows Fourier these days. Or maybe wavelets." One or the other to set up functions as either side transforms for convolution,
with wavelets as the sort more modern, while Fourier for the usually linear.

Phys.Rev. A 1973?
Of course there are already such notions of "replete continuity".

Aristotle's - line continuity - Jordan measure - "infinitesimals", "differential",
Eudoxus' - field continuity - standard
Nyquist's - signal continuity - Dirichlet function / Dirichlet problem

The "complete metrizing ultrafilter" usually stands out as one of the other of the line continuity or signal continuity, also.

So, these things existing alongside the "standard", though, are still, "inconsistent multiplicities",
or in brief hypocritical, from the derivations of the fundamental theorems of the standard.
Then, when they're called "non-standard" mostly it's "Jordan measure's called Jordan content
because otherwise it would be standard infinitesimals", and "Dirichlet function is in the everywhere
discontinuous functions though though gets into analytical character".

So, when I say "replete continuity", these at least three definitions of continuity or
line continuity, field continuity, and signal continuity, I expect them all to arise from
the foundations and the formalism and the axiomatics as one sort of overall consistent
formalism. Then, it's as they do, and fundamentally, equipping the rest of mathematics.

These days then often the issues in symmetry-flex or about varying definitions of
completeness under some "overcompleteness" for example, are referred to as "Dirichlet problem", then that things like "quasi-invariant measure theory" and
as well such notions as the "pseudo-differential", arrive at that most treatments
of the nonlinear and quantum in effect, arrive at setups of various "Dirichlet problem".

Then, this automatically equips continuity laws with an overall deconstructive account,
of, mathematically, various "effects" or tendencies and propensities of continuous quantities.

"I can't get my integrable to axiom this almost everywhere", "Oh, topology made one,
it's called a metrizing ultrafilter, or some of the new category theories write it first,
though, you can't mix it directly with standard real analysis". "It is consistent?"
"Well that's not a stupid question, here's a stupid answer, not my problem. It's usual and ends up being called almost everywhere or a.e. everywhere, and then that's dropped just later add it to your TeX macro."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 16 13:54:24 2023
On 9/16/2023 9:27 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B.
It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to
the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.

How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate. Remember, Einstein was starting from the mystery of why the speed of
light was always measured as the same, c, regardless of the motion of
the emitter. He postulated that a constant speed of light was some
unknown law of nature, and to make it the smallest postulate possible, postulated that the speed of light was c in just one frame. Einstein was
clever in doing that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 16 11:22:29 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:54:29 AM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/16/2023 9:27 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:15:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:18:12 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 9/10/23 12:57 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativists here including Tom Roberts simply accept Einstein's
second postulate assertion that the speed of the bullet is just B. >>>>> It can only be B compared with the car if it is B + P compared to >>>>> the street. Therefore, the second postulate relies on Galileo.
approach is useless. You REALLY need to learn basic physics before

Tom Roberts

To assert the speed is c in an IRF, one must maintain it is stationary, requiring absolute space.
No. All that's actually needed is that the speed of light is independent >> of the speed of the source in just ONE system selected beforehand.
That's how Einstein does it in his 1905 paper.

This is a blinkered approach. You've been hoodwinked by Einstein. Relativists don't have the mental qualifications to discuss physics.
How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate. Remember, Einstein was starting from the mystery of why the speed of
light was always measured as the same, c, regardless of the motion of
the emitter. He postulated that a constant speed of light was some
unknown law of nature, and to make it the smallest postulate possible, postulated that the speed of light was c in just one frame. Einstein was clever in doing that.

He (Einstein) just leaves it a property of the space, "SR is local".

Now, not all in the apparatus or the configuration of the experiment,
of 1905, and the definition of energy after electron physics instead of
the first term of the K.E. expansion, holds up same, it is so that not
until later did Einstein let "SR is local", but now it's the thing.

So, FitzGerald, who was sort of pushed aside if not directly under the bus, these days gets a lot more credit, and in a world where Bohm-deBroglie
are coming across as proper, about that Relativity of Simultaneity is _non_ local,
or rather "not necessarily except in deep space at 0 degrees", local,
that "in deep space only is everything local", that wave collapse is
real, and, non-local, and, SR is local.

So, the two-way measurements are always optical and geometric of course,
and in the rotational it does look like space contraction, though that the linear looks Galilean, and that's the geodesy because that's whatever light's geometric track is, in GR for SR, the geodesy: the terms of the _space_,
at any given _time_, that all frames _share_.

Though the linear space contraction results linear or Galilean,
it's still space contraction in effect or for FitzGerald-Lorentz,
about Einstein's great real contributions, of mass-energy equivalency
in the rotational, and, a vanishing non-zero cosmological constant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 16 12:52:56 2023
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 19:54:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate.

Sure it would be smart, but your idiot guru was an idiot.
Tell me, stupid Mike - if you assume speed of sound
x in one frame - will you be able to conclude it's x
in any frame? With your logic of "setting to 9 192 631 774
is setting to 9 192 631 770 (i'e. to Newton mode)"
it's quite possible.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Ross Finlayson@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Sat Sep 16 14:10:57 2023
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 12:52:58 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 19:54:29 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

How is that "blinkered"? Einstein could have postulated the speed of
light was c in all frames, but postulating the speed of light is c in
just one inertial frame was smart, since it is a much smaller postulate.
Sure it would be smart, but your idiot guru was an idiot.
Tell me, stupid Mike - if you assume speed of sound
x in one frame - will you be able to conclude it's x
in any frame? With your logic of "setting to 9 192 631 774
is setting to 9 192 631 770 (i'e. to Newton mode)"
it's quite possible.

Here the point seems the walking and stepping knee, forward, and,
then also, rotating backward is as landing down higher order step,
softer.

I.e. in regular motion is most soft, for example gradient descent.

also forward and backward in gears, ratios.

I.e., feet are not independent: two required. "Knees."

So, for mechanics, this is regular applied motion, up and down
over gears, and levers and gears, what is still up motion as far as
force applied.

This way so far as motion I write the same thing in every margin.

Mentally, ....

Then, for bodily motion, it's all quite connected kinematics,
which is called kinetics, only insofar as mass terms, which is kinetic,
it's like Kelvin says: "thermo: kinetic".

For example "a kinetic chiller": reaction makes chill input kinetics.

So, it's both laws. Here, that being first and second thermo law,
next and n'th thermo law, heat, heat's magmatic. (That to say so
is pragmatic.)

So, obviously for Kelvin, is, Kelvin fair enough is the law in the open weather.

Also there's humidity, from where "everything's better with dry".

That though is a social statistic, Kelvin is measured in too hot human
as Celsius.

So, Kelvin and Celcius are same, and, Fahrenheit is thermo, it's units, thermal units, 9/5 5/9, Celcius, Kelvins and Fahrenheit.

Which these days are in "not hot".

100, 100 Celsius, is water boiling, 100 Fahrenheit is hotter than 98.6, Human.

Humans regulate their own blood temperature at 98.6:, ... degrees.

Hotter than that is overgulation as down to zero is.

Overregulation - too hot.

So, an inch of water: I think I remember some year with no inch of water.

So, thermo first and second laws, both, are in units,
thermal units are British and those are the units.

This, kinetic, and, kinematic, and kinemimetic, here is knees,
and in inch of water has an overall boiling point of 100 degrees

A large overall boiling energy, ..., inch of water.

35 - is too hot.

It's like 100 Fahrenheit.

Kelvins ..., units, ....

Then, the dynamical system under the motion, is under the reciprocal step, which here abstractly is forward and up, for example at it. Those added
up, is applied shock, making for tight in units.

Of course, a cc of water boiling, and an inch of water an acre, is that
inches evaporate, while water boils in the pot.

Either goes back up to the air, ....

The cubic centimer, or deciliter or liter, boiling,

The continuous heat is when "very low on-demand is gas,
not running the house". Not quite boiling the water, but heating it.

Then, for me, I'd say that represents exactly that,
physics and knees, and temperature and kinetic,
empirical's in temperature, kinetic, ....

Units, ....

Thank you for reading this as it would probably get posted anyways.

Thermo: Both Laws.

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