From: Sam Wormley on
On 3/5/10 4:08 PM, JT wrote:
> On 5 mar, 21:50, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/5/10 2:45 PM, JT wrote:
>>
>>> Nah it was not the puzzle that defeated SR it was inertial, the honest
>>> one about SR, he actually proved the theory incorrect by boldly
>>> stipulating the new term separation velocity and guess!!!!
>>
>> Wrong -- Nobody has show SR to be incorrect. There has NEVER been
>> an observation that has contradicted a prediction of SR.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/user/JmanNo42?feature=mhw4#p/a/f/1/evcIPAXPhNY
>
> The candy man rules...
>
> Oooooh it feels just like it should.....
>
> JT

Jonas--Take a read of this A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

From: Sam Wormley on
On 3/7/10 9:49 AM, JT wrote:
> ***HAVE YOU OTHER RELATIVISTS REALISED THIS!!!!!
> THAT VELOCITY IS DIFFERENT THAN c FOR LIGHT LEAVING AN OBJECT***

Photons only exist propagating at c.



From: Sam Wormley on
On 3/7/10 5:27 PM, JT wrote:
> I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try
> to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse
> backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a spatial separation to
> the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial
> separation bacward that is 299 999.9997 km backwards.

Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically
verified.


From: JT on
On 8 mar, 02:14, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/7/10 5:27 PM,JTwrote:
>
> > I am sorry inertial i can not tell if you are an idiot or if you try
> > to lie. You proved above that an object that fire a lightpulse
> > backward and forward at 0.9999999999 c have a  spatial separation  to
> > the forward lightpulse that is 3 cm after one second, and a spatial
> > separation bacward that is  299 999.9997 km backwards.
>
>    Photon propagate at c for all inertial observers. Empirically
>    verified.

Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better
make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes
between frames. If not you are just juggling words when claiming
invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'.

Similar one must ask in my example where we had a lightpulse
travelling from relative stationary C to D at 0,9999999999c separated
by 300 000km.
That took 300 years at the clock at A and B at 0 c. So lightpulse was
fired when C and D passed A and B.

But the lightpulse will not reach D until A and B 300 lightyears away
300 years later. Now any object or system of object relative at rest,
can be considered as inertial. So if we treat C and D as an inertial
system we must now start to worry about the roundtrip now 300 years
passed at A and B when pulse from C reach D. This is easily proven
since we now that light travels at 3 cm per second using clocks at A
and B to measure pulse from C and D. So if A and B had means to
instantly stop the relative movement of C and D after 150 years the
light pulse would only be halfway.

But as soon the lightpulse reach D, Fire own pulse or reflect pulse
from C i (should not matter according to relativity), now a knew
conundrum show up the light must pass back at 1,9999999999c towards C
to be abel traverse system A and B again at 1c.

However we know that system C and D is 300 years away from original
point of firepulse(At A and B) that was one second in system of C and
D passing, somehow now the pulse from D to C travels at 1,9999999999
relative C to be able to travel at c in system (A and B). So the
roundtrip equals 300 years +0,5 sec.

That means that time must be vector sensitive in C and D system.

JT
From: Sam Wormley on
On 3/14/10 6:22 PM, JT wrote:
> Since c is a velocity and velocity is the ratio of d/t ,you better
> make sure that your d/t really are invariant units of same magnitudes
> between frames. If not you are just juggling words when claiming
> invariant. v'<>v in two frames all though the ratio d/t=d'/t'.

c is the SPEED of light not velocity and distance units are
define in terms of the speed of light. You seem to be trying
to argue that light doesn't propagate at c, which will prove
to be superfluous.