Brian Greene: "Whether you run toward or away from a beam of light, its speed will be unchanged when you measure it" https://youtu.be/-Irlq3TFr8Q?t=81

Here are George emitting equidistant light pulses and Gracie running towards him:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the pulses relative to the stationary Gracie is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary Gracie. The speed of the pulses relative to the running Gracie is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the running Gracie.

That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:44:58 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Brian Greene: "Whether you run toward or away from a beam of light, its speed will be unchanged when you measure it" https://youtu.be/-Irlq3TFr8Q?t=81
>
> Here are George emitting equidistant light pulses and Gracie running towards him:
>
> https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>
> The speed of the pulses relative to the stationary Gracie is
>
> c = df
>
> where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary Gracie. The speed of the pulses relative to the running Gracie is
>
> c'= df' > c
>
> where f' > f is the frequency measured by the running Gracie.
>
> That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer.
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
It would be so illogical as to be irrational to deny additive velocities for anything because all motion is relative. The second postulate and constant speed of light idea are irrational.

On 3/17/2023 12:58 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:44:58 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Brian Greene: "Whether you run toward or away from a beam of light, its speed will be unchanged when you measure it" https://youtu.be/-Irlq3TFr8Q?t=81
>>
>> Here are George emitting equidistant light pulses and Gracie running towards him:
>>
>> https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>>
>> The speed of the pulses relative to the stationary Gracie is
>>
>> c = df
>>
>> where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary Gracie. The speed of the pulses relative to the running Gracie is
>>
>> c'= df' > c
>>
>> where f' > f is the frequency measured by the running Gracie.
>>
>> That is, the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer.
>>
>> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
> It would be so illogical as to be irrational to deny additive velocities for anything because all motion is relative. The second postulate and constant speed of light idea are irrational.

So the speed of sound here on earth varies with atmospheric conditions.

How certain can you be that's a unique circumstance?

We detect the atmosphere, the transmitting medium. Can we detect the
aether, the transmitter for light? What do we know about what goes
on with the aether and what effect, if any, that has on the speed
of light?

Dismissing this difficulty lightly would be an error.

Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:

https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157

Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

Why does Brian Greene abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, is an obvious absurdity. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Einstein knew that SYMMETRIC time dilation is absurd and fraudulently "deduced" ASYMMETRIC time dilation in 1905:

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

It is easy to see that the valid deduction (SYMMETRIC time dilation) doesn't, but the non sequitur (ASYMMETRIC time dilation) does predict TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (more precisely, idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

"The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:47:26 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:
>
> https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157
>
> Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.
>
> Why does Brian Greene abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, is an obvious absurdity. It says that, if two clocks are initially stationary and synchronized, then move towards one another and finally meet, either clock lags behind the other as judged from the other clock's system. Einstein knew that SYMMETRIC time dilation is absurd and fraudulently "deduced" ASYMMETRIC time dilation in 1905:
>
> Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> It is easy to see that the valid deduction (SYMMETRIC time dilation) doesn't, but the non sequitur (ASYMMETRIC time dilation) does predict TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (more precisely, idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:
>
> "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
Einstein already, in his 1905 article, switched from relative to absolute motion making it asymmetric.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from
Einstein's
> 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time
> dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

Kiev issues warning to countries that don’t support Ukraine
Countries that “mistreated Ukraine” will be held accountable, says Foreign
Minister Dmitry Kuleba
https://%72%74.com/russia/573147-kuleba-ukraine-support-warning/

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wrote in a Telegram
post that while Kuleba was “trying to clumsily intimidate the world
community,” he was simultaneously publishing announcements on his
ministry’s website, searching for “anyone who could represent the Kiev
regime at the ambassador level abroad.”

“Even though there is a foreign currency salary, it seems there is no one
to be found,” Zakharova said.