"Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE

"The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.

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

Pentcho Valev

torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>
> "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
>
> "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
>
> "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
>
> Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
False, it is constant

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170

If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following

Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.

This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.

Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.

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

Pentcho Valev

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:30:31 AM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> > "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
> >
> > "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
> >
> > "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
> >
> > "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
> >
> > Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
> >
> > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> >
> > The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> False, it is constant

No. It is oscillating in time. It is not a standing wave...

Pentcho Valev--China hiding 10,000 ICBMs near Einstein statue in Beijing square.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:43:02 AM UTC-5, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source"

Pentcho, does the Doppler effect help hide the 12,000 Chinese ICBMs ???

Sergio siren of Muck the Puke
> WM's three proofs of dark number 12,000.
>
> Are these your three proofs Muck the Puck.
> 1) Terra cotta clay army by first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang was 12,000
> 2) Lao Tse said Russia has 6,000, America has 6,000, we must have 12,000 for mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.
> 3) Regain back Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok stolen by Russia.
>

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-4, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
>
> If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
>
> Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
>
> This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
>
> Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
>
> Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
>
> Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
>
> Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.
>
> Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
>
> Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
>
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev
I like your idea that the wavelength is constant. What would the wavelength be then? What would the frequency of light be at the standard speed of light C? How fast would light being traveling if the frequency were less than 100 Hertz? Any ideas? Other than that I like your idea. Plank's law can be a distribution of speed as opposed to a distribution of wavelength or frequency. the greater the speed the more momentum and the more energy a photon has. perfect. Classic. may explain why massive cold dark matter hasn't been detected since these large masses would admit light at low speeds. The photons would decelerate toward the dark matter and would never reach any observer on or near Earth. Onto blackholes.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 9:57:11 PM UTC-4, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 4:56:47 PM UTC-4, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
> >
> > If Feynman is correct, the wave-based concept of variation of the wavelength of light (illustration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mJTRXCMU6o&t=77s) is unrealistic. It makes sense to advance the following
> >
> > Axiom: The wavelength of light is invariable.
> >
> > This axiom, combined with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), produces the following corollaries:
> >
> > Corollary 1: Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.
> >
> > Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.
> >
> > Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist.
> >
> > Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation.
> >
> > Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is not expanding.
> >
> > Corollary 6: The dark sky in the Olbers' paradox can be explained by the fact that very slow light coming from very distant sources (known as CMB) is invisible.
> >
> > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> I like your idea that the wavelength is constant. What would the wavelength be then? What would the frequency of light be at the standard speed of light C? How fast would light being traveling if the frequency were less than 100 Hertz? Any ideas? Other than that I like your idea. Plank's law can be a distribution of speed as opposed to a distribution of wavelength or frequency. the greater the speed the more momentum and the more energy a photon has. perfect. Classic. may explain why massive cold dark matter hasn't been detected since these large masses would admit light at low speeds. The photons would decelerate toward the dark matter and would never reach any observer on or near Earth. Onto blackholes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:00:59 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:30:31 AM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> > > "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
> > >
> > > "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
> > >
> > > "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
> > >
> > > "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
> > >
> > > Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
> > >
> > > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> > >
> > > The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
> > >
> > > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > False, it is constant
> No. It is oscillating in time. It is not a standing wave...
You're a joker you really are.

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> > "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
> >
> > "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
> >
> > "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
> >
> > "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
> >
> > Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
> >
> > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> >
> > The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> False, it is constant
How do you know?

On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> > "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
> >
> > "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
> >
> > "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
> >
> > "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
> >
> > Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
> >
> > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> >
> > The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> False, it is constant
And you would agree it accelerates as well?

torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 23:00:59 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:30:31 AM UTC-7, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> > > "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
> > >
> > > "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
> > >
> > > "The wavelength is staying the same in this case." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
> > >
> > > "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
> > >
> > > Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance with the formula
> > >
> > > (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> > >
> > > The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
> > >
> > > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > False, it is constant
> No. It is oscillating in time. It is not a standing wave...
The speed of light is constant

Simon Roberts brought next idea :
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> torsdag 15 september 2022 kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
>>> "Doppler effect -- when an observer moves toward a stationary source"
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
>>>
>>> "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...]
>>> but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer."
>>> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
>>>
>>> "The wavelength is staying the same in this case."
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHepfIIsKcE
>>>
>>> "The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
>>> frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a
>>> given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
>>>
>>> Accordingly, if the speed of the observer relative to the light source is
>>> v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in accordance
>>> with the formula
>>>
>>> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>>>
>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton, not constant as per Einstein.
>>>
>>> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>>>
>>> Pentcho Valev
>> False, it is constant
> How do you know?

Why wouldn't it be? Especially when we allow for distance and time to
be flexible. Keep in mind that it is the measurement of the speed of
light that is in question.

On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>> torsdag 15 september 2022
>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:

>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
>>> not constant as per Einstein.

>> False, it is constant
>
> How do you know?

A constant speed of light is what we measure,
even as the laboratory in which we measure it,
on Earth, revolves around the Sun, and changes
its velocity by over 200,000 km/hr, from one
end of the year to the other.

It's a technically challenging measurement,
because the speed of light is 5,000,000 times
larger than 200,000 km/hr, but very smart
people were up to the challenge.

Other very smart people have continued to
improve on previous versions of the measurement.
| More recently, in 2009, optical resonator
| experiments confirmed the absence of any
| aether wind at the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The problems begin with the Maxwell equations
∇⋅𝐄 = ρ/ε₀
∇⋅𝐁 = 0
∇⨯𝐄 = -∂𝐁/∂t
∇⨯𝐁 = μ₀(𝐉+ε₀∂𝐄/∂t)

If we use Newton's transformations on them,
they do not keep the same form. One earlier
explanation was there was a special reference
frame in which that form is correct, the one
in which the luminiferous aether is stationary.

The Lorentz transformations are derived by
requiring that the Maxwell equations
keep the same form for different observers.
Or different starships. Or particles. Etc.

This is physics, not mathematics. In physics,
a square peg can always be driven into a
round hole by the application of enough
special assumptions. However, the far-and-away
best (fewest special assumptions) explanation
for what we measure is special relativity.

Physicists would not readily accept the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable":

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

Hawking is not alone - all physicists believe that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter. Here is an animation: https://youtu.be/3mJTRXCMU6o?t=77

Variable wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter could regularly measure the (varying) wavelength inside his spaceship - so he would know his speed without looking outside. If, for instance, measurements inside the spaceship show that the wavelength has decreased, the emitter will conclude that his spaceship is now moving faster than before.

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

Pentcho Valev

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022
> > at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> torsdag 15 september 2022
> >> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> >>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
> >>> not constant as per Einstein.
> >> False, it is constant
> >
> > How do you know?
> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
> even as the laboratory in which we measure it,
> on Earth, revolves around the Sun, and changes
> its velocity by over 200,000 km/hr, from one
> end of the year to the other.
>
> It's a technically challenging measurement,
> because the speed of light is 5,000,000 times
> larger than 200,000 km/hr, but very smart
> people were up to the challenge.
>
> Other very smart people have continued to
> improve on previous versions of the measurement.
> | More recently, in 2009, optical resonator
> | experiments confirmed the absence of any
> | aether wind at the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
> |
> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
>
> The problems begin with the Maxwell equations
> ∇⋅𝐄 = ρ/ε₀
> ∇⋅𝐁 = 0
> ∇⨯𝐄 = -∂𝐁/∂t
> ∇⨯𝐁 = μ₀(𝐉+ε₀∂𝐄/∂t)
>
> If we use Newton's transformations on them,
> they do not keep the same form. One earlier
> explanation was there was a special reference
> frame in which that form is correct, the one
> in which the luminiferous aether is stationary.
>
> The Lorentz transformations are derived by
> requiring that the Maxwell equations
> keep the same form for different observers.
> Or different starships. Or particles. Etc.
>
>
> This is physics, not mathematics. In physics,
> a square peg can always be driven into a
> round hole by the application of enough
> special assumptions. However, the far-and-away
> best (fewest special assumptions) explanation
> for what we measure is special relativity.
I'm going to go play basketball now.

Simon Roberts pretended :
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
>> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
>>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
>>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
>>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
>>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
>>>> False, it is constant
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
>> even as the laboratory in which we measure it,
>> on Earth, revolves around the Sun, and changes
>> its velocity by over 200,000 km/hr, from one
>> end of the year to the other.
>>
>> It's a technically challenging measurement,
>> because the speed of light is 5,000,000 times
>> larger than 200,000 km/hr, but very smart
>> people were up to the challenge.
>>
>> Other very smart people have continued to
>> improve on previous versions of the measurement.
>>> More recently, in 2009, optical resonator
>>> experiments confirmed the absence of any
>>> aether wind at the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
>>>
>> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
>>
>> The problems begin with the Maxwell equations
>> ∇⋅? = ρ/ε₀
>> ∇⋅? = 0
>> ∇⨯? = -∂?/∂t
>> ∇⨯? = μ₀(?+ε₀∂?/∂t)
>>
>> If we use Newton's transformations on them,
>> they do not keep the same form. One earlier
>> explanation was there was a special reference
>> frame in which that form is correct, the one
>> in which the luminiferous aether is stationary.
>>
>> The Lorentz transformations are derived by
>> requiring that the Maxwell equations
>> keep the same form for different observers.
>> Or different starships. Or particles. Etc.
>>
>>
>> This is physics, not mathematics. In physics,
>> a square peg can always be driven into a
>> round hole by the application of enough
>> special assumptions. However, the far-and-away
>> best (fewest special assumptions) explanation
>> for what we measure is special relativity.
> I'm going to go play basketball now.

Use Newtonian physics for that, just a helpful hint. :)

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 3:35:05 PM UTC-7, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Simon Roberts pretended :
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> >> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
> >>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
> >>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> >>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
> >>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
> >>>> False, it is constant
> >>>
> >>> How do you know?
> >> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
> >> even as the laboratory in which we measure it,
> >> on Earth, revolves around the Sun, and changes
> >> its velocity by over 200,000 km/hr, from one
> >> end of the year to the other.
> >>
> >> It's a technically challenging measurement,
> >> because the speed of light is 5,000,000 times
> >> larger than 200,000 km/hr, but very smart
> >> people were up to the challenge.
> >>
> >> Other very smart people have continued to
> >> improve on previous versions of the measurement.
> >>> More recently, in 2009, optical resonator
> >>> experiments confirmed the absence of any
> >>> aether wind at the 10⁻¹⁷ level.
> >>>
> >> -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
> >>
> >> The problems begin with the Maxwell equations
> >> ∇⋅? = ρ/ε₀
> >> ∇⋅? = 0
> >> ∇⨯? = -∂?/∂t
> >> ∇⨯? = μ₀(?+ε₀∂?/∂t)
> >>
> >> If we use Newton's transformations on them,
> >> they do not keep the same form. One earlier
> >> explanation was there was a special reference
> >> frame in which that form is correct, the one
> >> in which the luminiferous aether is stationary.
> >>
> >> The Lorentz transformations are derived by
> >> requiring that the Maxwell equations
> >> keep the same form for different observers.
> >> Or different starships. Or particles. Etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is physics, not mathematics. In physics,
> >> a square peg can always be driven into a
> >> round hole by the application of enough
> >> special assumptions. However, the far-and-away
> >> best (fewest special assumptions) explanation
> >> for what we measure is special relativity.
> > I'm going to go play basketball now.
> Use Newtonian physics for that, just a helpful hint. :)

There would always be science beyond a genius that was
the first of his ancient kind. Einstein was religious so he
got judged by the world of mediocre minds...
He said atheism was his problem.

On 9/16/2022 6:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Simon Roberts pretended :
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022
>> at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
>>> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
>>>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
>>>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:

>>>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
>>>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>> False, it is constant
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>> A constant speed of light is what we measure,

>> I'm going to go play basketball now.
>
> Use Newtonian physics for that,
> just a helpful hint. :)

If you say so.

Passing the ball at 0.99c seems like it
should be effective,
-- I mean, apart from side effects
like radiation poisoning.

Jim Burns was thinking very hard :
> On 9/16/2022 6:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Simon Roberts pretended :
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022
>>> at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
>>>>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
>>>>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
>
>>>>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
>>>>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False, it is constant
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
>
>>> I'm going to go play basketball now.
>>
>> Use Newtonian physics for that,
>> just a helpful hint. :)
>
> If you say so.
>
> Passing the ball at 0.99c seems like it
> should be effective,
> -- I mean, apart from side effects
> like radiation poisoning.

A basketball shaped like a large thin wafer won't fit through the hoop.

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 6:58:59 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
> Jim Burns was thinking very hard :
> > On 9/16/2022 6:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
> >> Simon Roberts pretended :
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022
> >>> at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
> >>>> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
> >>>>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
> >>>>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
> >
> >>>>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
> >>>>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> False, it is constant
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you know?
> >>>>
> >>>> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
> >
> >>> I'm going to go play basketball now.
> >>
> >> Use Newtonian physics for that,
> >> just a helpful hint. :)
> >
> > If you say so.
> >
> > Passing the ball at 0.99c seems like it
> > should be effective,
> > -- I mean, apart from side effects
> > like radiation poisoning.
> A basketball shaped like a large thin wafer won't fit through the hoop.
It may have incredible Hang time though. As if it was defying the laws of physics.

Simon Roberts formulated on Saturday :
> On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 6:58:59 AM UTC-4, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Jim Burns was thinking very hard :
>>> On 9/16/2022 6:34 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> Simon Roberts pretended :
>>>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022
>>>>> at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, Jim Burns wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/15/2022 10:26 PM, Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 15, 2022
>>>>>>> at 5:30:31 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> torsdag 15 september 2022
>>>>>>>> kl. 10:43:02 UTC+2 skrev pva...@yahoo.com:
>>>>>>>>> The speed of light is variable as per Newton,
>>>>>>>>> not constant as per Einstein.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False, it is constant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A constant speed of light is what we measure,
>>>>> I'm going to go play basketball now.
>>>>
>>>> Use Newtonian physics for that,
>>>> just a helpful hint. :)
>>>
>>> If you say so.
>>>
>>> Passing the ball at 0.99c seems like it
>>> should be effective,
>>> -- I mean, apart from side effects
>>> like radiation poisoning.
>> A basketball shaped like a large thin wafer won't fit through the hoop.
> It may have incredible Hang time though. As if it was defying the laws of
> physics.

Jump ball? Again? These things seem to take forever, no, a relatively
long time!