About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Logic]
|
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 22:43 On Jul 22, 5:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > Androcles: This reply of yours is one of the best I've read from you or anyone! A thrown baseball is source dependent. So too is light! NoEinstein > > "Sebastian Garth" <sebastianga...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:051e4eae-8f4a-4905-87b7-f0fe8fac4a12(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > The math I did PROVES that the > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C > (such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? > ============================================== > There is no "experiment" you can perform on a galaxy, dork, > all you can do is observe them. > Refusing to accept that light's speed is source dependent is your > problem. To get around it you wankers have had to invent dork > matter and dork energy, which you do not understand. > "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" > The most useful statement of Ockham's razor for scientists is > "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same > predictions, the simpler one is the better." > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg > > This pencil is bent because I can see it is. Pencils must bend when put in > water. > > I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. > > This pencil appears bent because light refracts. > > This galaxy turns too fast because I calculate it does. It must contain dork > matter! > > I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. > > This galaxy appears to turn too fast because light's speed is source > dependent.
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 23 Jul 2010 02:33 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:58:32 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"Sebastian Garth" <sebastiangarth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:051e4eae-8f4a-4905-87b7-f0fe8fac4a12(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> The math I did PROVES that the >> velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in >> the direction being considered. � NoEinstein � > >Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C >(such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? >============================================== >There is no "experiment" you can perform on a galaxy, dork, >all you can do is observe them. >Refusing to accept that light's speed is source dependent is your >problem. To get around it you wankers have had to invent dork >matter and dork energy, which you do not understand. >"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" >The most useful statement of Ockham's razor for scientists is >"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same >predictions, the simpler one is the better." > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg > >This pencil is bent because I can see it is. Pencils must bend when put in >water. > >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. > >This pencil appears bent because light refracts. > >This galaxy turns too fast because I calculate it does. It must contain dork >matter! > >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. > >This galaxy appears to turn too fast because light's speed is source >dependent. > How much, Andro, how much? Ya know NIST has fixed c. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c NIST are no saints nor Gods, read that artice: http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf where they claim to have improved measurement accuracy 100 times. >This careful measurement resulted in a reduction of >the uncertainty of the speed of light by a factor of nearly 100. A hundredfold of WHAT? (Shitty propaganda paper). ==== Want to learn from you, Andro. Please give some hints and kinks where I may find the truth. Please give a few examples of real MEASUREMENTS of c with variations according to source speed. MEASUREEMENTS, no retro-data fitting, but real MEASUREMENTS. Please, Andro. w.
From: Androcles on 23 Jul 2010 04:09 "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message news:j0di46phooi82glhdn6300755d2pssfshq(a)4ax.com... | On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:58:32 +0100, "Androcles" | <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: | | > | >"Sebastian Garth" <sebastiangarth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message | >news:051e4eae-8f4a-4905-87b7-f0fe8fac4a12(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... | >On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: | >> The math I did PROVES that the | >> velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in | >> the direction being considered. - NoEinstein - | > | >Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C | >(such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? | >============================================== | >There is no "experiment" you can perform on a galaxy, dork, | >all you can do is observe them. | >Refusing to accept that light's speed is source dependent is your | >problem. To get around it you wankers have had to invent dork | >matter and dork energy, which you do not understand. | >"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" | >The most useful statement of Ockham's razor for scientists is | >"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same | >predictions, the simpler one is the better." | > | > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg | > | >This pencil is bent because I can see it is. Pencils must bend when put in | >water. | > | >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. | > | >This pencil appears bent because light refracts. | > | >This galaxy turns too fast because I calculate it does. It must contain dork | >matter! | > | >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. | > | >This galaxy appears to turn too fast because light's speed is source | >dependent. | > | How much, Andro, how much? | | Ya know NIST has fixed c. I know wabnigga believes what he's told and can't think for himself. If I walk at 3 mph down the aisle of a flying plane then I'm walking at 503 mph wrt to the ground, no matter how precisely you measure my speed on the plane. | | http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c | | NIST are no saints nor Gods, read that artice: | http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf | where they claim to have improved | measurement accuracy 100 times. | | >This careful measurement resulted in a reduction of | >the uncertainty of the speed of light by a factor of nearly 100. | | A hundredfold of WHAT? (Shitty propaganda paper). | Wabbie, it doesn't matter how precisely you cut a length of wood to exactly 1.00000000 metres, it doesn't do me much good if I want a yard = 3 feet. You'll still be 3.3700787 inches too long. | ==== | | Want to learn from you, Andro. | Please give some hints and kinks where I may find the truth. Here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html If the galaxy rotates once every 1,000,000 years and is 21,000,000 ly away and the arm displacement is +/- 36 degrees then the displacement in time is 36/360 * 1,000,000 = 100,000 years. Infra-red light left 21.1 megayears ago. Visible light left 21.0 megayears ago. X-ray light took 20.9 megayears ago. Simple Ockham's razor answer, the speed of X-rays is greater than the speed of visible light, which is greater than the speed of IR. Crazy Einstein theory answer: "In fact, an analysis of the x-ray and radio data suggests that the anamolous arms are composed of material heated by shock waves." The sentence begins with "In fact" which tells us immediately that what follows is a suggested pure invention to explain why there is only one speed of radiation. If you believe that then believe pencils bend in water because that is what you see. | Please give a few examples of real MEASUREMENTS of c | with variations according to source speed. | MEASUREEMENTS, no retro-data fitting, but real MEASUREMENTS. | Please, Andro. It's no good doing it in a laboratory, you need a moving source. Ask JPL to do it. http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/saturntourdates/saturntime/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SedRrGuT8Kg Ask Cassini the time and work out the real speed from that, going and coming back. Do this as Earth approaches Saturn and again 6 months later as Earth recedes from Saturn and you'll have your answer.
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 23 Jul 2010 05:04 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:09:11 +0100, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message >news:j0di46phooi82glhdn6300755d2pssfshq(a)4ax.com... >| On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:58:32 +0100, "Androcles" >| <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >| >| > >| >"Sebastian Garth" <sebastiangarth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >| >news:051e4eae-8f4a-4905-87b7-f0fe8fac4a12(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >| >On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >| >> The math I did PROVES that the >| >> velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in >| >> the direction being considered. - NoEinstein - >| > >| >Why, then, has no experiment ever measured it as anything other than C >| >(such as from a galaxy moving rapidly toward or away from us)? >| >============================================== >| >There is no "experiment" you can perform on a galaxy, dork, >| >all you can do is observe them. >| >Refusing to accept that light's speed is source dependent is your >| >problem. To get around it you wankers have had to invent dork >| >matter and dork energy, which you do not understand. >| >"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" >| >The most useful statement of Ockham's razor for scientists is >| >"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same >| >predictions, the simpler one is the better." >| > >| > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg >| > >| >This pencil is bent because I can see it is. Pencils must bend when put >in >| >water. >| > >| >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. >| > >| >This pencil appears bent because light refracts. >| > >| >This galaxy turns too fast because I calculate it does. It must contain >dork >| >matter! >| > >| >I have to believe what I see and I like my theory. >| > >| >This galaxy appears to turn too fast because light's speed is source >| >dependent. >| > >| How much, Andro, how much? >| >| Ya know NIST has fixed c. > >I know wabnigga believes what he's told and can't think for himself. > >If I walk at 3 mph down the aisle of a flying plane then I'm walking at 503 >mph wrt to the ground, no matter how precisely you measure >my speed on the plane. > >| >| http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c >| >| NIST are no saints nor Gods, read that artice: >| http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf >| where they claim to have improved >| measurement accuracy 100 times. >| >| >This careful measurement resulted in a reduction of >| >the uncertainty of the speed of light by a factor of nearly 100. >| >| A hundredfold of WHAT? (Shitty propaganda paper). >| >Wabbie, it doesn't matter how precisely you cut a length of wood to exactly >1.00000000 metres, it doesn't do me much good if I want >a yard = 3 feet. You'll still be 3.3700787 inches too long. >| ==== >| >| Want to learn from you, Andro. >| Please give some hints and kinks where I may find the truth. > >Here: > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html > >If the galaxy rotates once every 1,000,000 years and is 21,000,000 ly away >and the arm displacement is +/- 36 degrees then the displacement >in time is 36/360 * 1,000,000 = 100,000 years. >Infra-red light left 21.1 megayears ago. >Visible light left 21.0 megayears ago. >X-ray light took 20.9 megayears ago. > >Simple Ockham's razor answer, the speed of X-rays is greater than the speed >of visible light, which is greater than the speed of IR. > I know that example from your former posts. There is an open question though: Why only on that particular galaxy, why not on all and every other galaxy? If there is a fundamental mechanism at work, it must effect all starlight from all other sources too. May be you will find other examples which have the same or similar coloring effects, but that is still not sufficient, ALL galaxies must follow the same laws then, or not? >Crazy Einstein theory answer: >"In fact, an analysis of the x-ray and radio data suggests that the >anamolous arms are composed of material heated by shock waves." > >The sentence begins with "In fact" which tells us immediately that what >follows is a suggested pure invention to explain why there is only one speed >of radiation. If you believe that then believe pencils bend in water because >that is what you see. > >| Please give a few examples of real MEASUREMENTS of c >| with variations according to source speed. >| MEASUREEMENTS, no retro-data fitting, but real MEASUREMENTS. >| Please, Andro. > >It's no good doing it in a laboratory, you need a moving source. >Ask JPL to do it. > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/saturntourdates/saturntime/ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SedRrGuT8Kg > >Ask Cassini the time and work out the real speed from that, going and coming >back. Do this as Earth approaches Saturn and again 6 months later as Earth >recedes from Saturn and you'll have your answer. Yawn. Sounds like a idea from the past, and it has been done a thousand times, don't you think so? BTW, before NIST carved the c into granite, they offered a value of c with a precision of +/- 1 m/sec. That means, c was measurable to that precision at the time. (Disregarding for the moment those freak theories that c normalizes itself when coming near EARTH. See sci.physics archives) Andro, what makes you think, c from starlight cannot be measured? w.
From: harald on 23 Jul 2010 07:07
On Jul 21, 10:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 21, 11:02 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > Dear NoEinstein, > > > As you probably know, math cannot prove a physical theory. > > > Regards, > > Harald > > Dear Harald: That's BS! Mathperformed by someone who has the > science correctcan have a perfectly constructed "experiment" without > spending a dime! But I also have my X, Y, & Z interferometer, which > knocks Albert Einstein right out of his coffin! NoEinstein > Dear NoEinstein, It is certainly possible to do with math a "thought experiment" to investigate the consequences of your theory. It is just as well possible to do with math a "thought experiment" to investigate the consequences of a competing theory. Such thought experiments cannot prove any physical theory right. Harald |