On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:28:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/6/23 10:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Michelson aligned the mirrors of his apparatus so the beam remained in
> the apparatus and focused on the observer's eyepiece, regardless of any
> motion of the lab. That is, he compensated for such motion by angling
> the mirrors appropriately, at least in principle.
>
> If you knew much about physics, you would also know that while the light
> is traversing the apparatus, the movement of the apparatus due to the
> orbit and rotation of the earth is vastly smaller than he could observe.
>
> So your concerns are unfounded and irrelevant.
>
> Tom Roberts
You completely missed his point. Congratulations!

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:16:39 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > If N wavecrests have been emitted (and split) by the instant when
> > the first wavecrests arrive (which you stipulated), then there are N
> > crests in transit along each path.
>
> During a CHANGE in speed...

First, the speed of the mirrors isn't changing during steady operation when readings are taken, and second, even if it was changing, the simple and irrefutable fact remains that if N wavecrests have been emitted (and split) by the instant when the first wavecrests arrive (which you stipulated), then at this instant there are N crests in transit along each path. This is an unambiguously true statement, as any sentient being can see.

> > Wait... later in your message you said "the r=2 is correct", but here
> > you are saying r=1 is correct. Which is it? The case of no phase shift
> > is r=2, as explained above. That means the speed coming off the first
> > moving mirrors is c +- 2v.
>
> Sorry I was using the Sagnac ring explanation. The moving mirror
> experiment is a bit more complicated.

Well, for the 1913 Michelson apparatus, are you claiming r=1 or r=2? Both of those would imply a result that is falsified by the actual observations. The case that matches the observed result is r=0.

> Forget about r. Just consider the Newtonian approach.

The parameter "r" represents the different proposed speeds of light after reflection, and the predicted result using Newtonian reasoning in each case depends crucially on the value of r, as has been shown. The method that Michelson used is exactly the reasoninbg that Newton would have used to analyze these cases... except of course Newton wouldn't have made the error for the case r=1 that Michelson made.

> Note, in ballistic theory, there is no wavelength Doppler shift during
> reflection from a mirror.

That's crazy, Doppler is a first order effect, dependent entirely on the rate of change of the distance traveled, which applies in every rationally coherent theory. The various theories differ only in the second order. Remember the simplke question I asked that you were unable to answer? The answer to that question is what distinguishes between the Doppler effects of the different theories. You simply ran away.

Look, if each phase has equal travel time along both paths, and arrives simultaneously at the receiver, the waves are in phase by definition. No sentient being could claim that if the split wave crests arrive simultaneously, the waves do not have zero phase difference. It is completely self-evident.

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 8:28:57 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/6/23 10:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Michelson aligned the mirrors of his apparatus so the beam remained in
> the apparatus and focused on the observer's eyepiece, regardless of any
> motion of the lab. That is, he compensated for such motion by angling
> the mirrors appropriately, at least in principle.
>
> If you knew much about physics, you would also know that while the light
> is traversing the apparatus, the movement of the apparatus due to the
> orbit and rotation of the earth is vastly smaller than he could observe.
>
> So your concerns are unfounded and irrelevant.
>
> Tom Roberts
That was an ignorant comment. If you knew anything about physics, you would not have made it. The interferometer measures the difference in arrival times of the beams. If the path is an elongated hypotenuse, it will take longer and register fringe shifts. Anyone who indulges in the reification fallacy is an inept physicist, including you know who. If you knew anything about logic, you could begin to learn physics. There are many good books on introductory informal logic. Take your pick. Most interesting is your hoodwinked perspective imagining that the observer doesn't have an interferometer to observe with.

Den 07.06.2023 04:56, skrev Androcles' Ghost:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:50:39 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>
>> Repeating the same imbecility over and over doesn't make it true. Hint:
>> the beam is inclined in the classical interpretation as well.
>
> Just plot the bloody thing and see for yourself. It is not very
> difficult. The beam remains vertical in all frames. You don't have to be
> a genius to see that ...but you have to be a real idiot to not realise
> it. Poke it up a hollow vertical pole and drive past it at c/2. You wont
> see the pole leaning over 30 degrees.
>
>

This reminds me:
https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLightPulse.pdf

https://paulba.no/LightClock.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:

> > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> >
> Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.

Both you and AG are crackpots.
The difference is that you have the mistaken belief that
you represent mainstream physics, including relativity.
In reality, you advocate your own misunderstandings
about relativity, and you consistently mess up even on
matters at the high school physics level.

I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
admitting to a simple mistake.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>
> > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > >
> > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> Both you and AG are crackpots.

>

It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:

In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:

cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}

i.e.

cos \theta'=-v/c

See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?

> I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> admitting to a simple mistake.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ

Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

> I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> admitting to a simple mistake.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ

It is you who got to eat crow, despicable lying piece of shit:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 16:28:44 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> >
> > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > >
> > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > Both you and AG are crackpots.
>
> >
> It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.

Kookfight!

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> >
> > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > >
> > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > Both you and AG are crackpots.
>
> >
> It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
>
> In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
>
> cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
>
> i.e.
>
> cos \theta'=-v/c

1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
indeed travel at an angle.)

You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
was which.

2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
frame.

> See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.

Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > >
> > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > >
> > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> >
> > >
> > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> >
> > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> >
> > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> >
> > i.e.
> >
> > cos \theta'=-v/c
> 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> indeed travel at an angle.)
>
> You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> was which.
>

I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.

> 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> frame.

The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.

> > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.

Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> > >
> > > >
> > > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> > > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> > >
> > > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> > >
> > > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> > >
> > > i.e.
> > >
> > > cos \theta'=-v/c
> > 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> > which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> > the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> > You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> > as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> > the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> > and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> > indeed travel at an angle.)
> >
> > You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
> >
> > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> > In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> > was which.
> >
> I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.
> > 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> > you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> > follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> > frame.
> The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.
> > > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> > Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> > on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.
> Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ

Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics..
> > > > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> > > >
> > > > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > > > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> > > >
> > > > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> > > >
> > > > i.e.
> > > >
> > > > cos \theta'=-v/c
> > > 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> > > which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> > > the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> > > You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> > > as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> > > the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> > > and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> > > indeed travel at an angle.)
> > >
> > > You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
> > >
> > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> > > In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> > > was which.
> > >
> > I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.
> > > 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> > > you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> > > follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> > > frame.
> > The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.
> > > > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > > > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> > > Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> > > on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.
> > Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
> > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ
> Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.

I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught, you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and less and you will overcompensate with lying.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > > > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> > > > > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > > > > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> > > > >
> > > > > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> > > > >
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > >
> > > > > cos \theta'=-v/c
> > > > 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> > > > which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> > > > the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> > > > You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> > > > as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> > > > the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> > > > and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> > > > indeed travel at an angle.)
> > > >
> > > > You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> > > > In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> > > > was which.
> > > >
> > > I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.
> > > > 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> > > > you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> > > > follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> > > > frame.
> > > The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.
> > > > > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > > > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > > > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > > > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > > > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > > > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > > > > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> > > > Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> > > > on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.
> > > Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ
> > Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.
> I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught, you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and less and you will overcompensate with lying.

If gravity slows time for GPS It slows time for light.
Light and atom under gravity get its slow time from gravity strength.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:50:46 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > > > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> > > > > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> > > > >
> > > > > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > > > > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> > > > >
> > > > > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> > > > >
> > > > > i.e.
> > > > >
> > > > > cos \theta'=-v/c
> > > > 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> > > > which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> > > > the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> > > > You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> > > > as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> > > > the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> > > > and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> > > > indeed travel at an angle.)
> > > >
> > > > You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
> > > >
> > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> > > > In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> > > > was which.
> > > >
> > > I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.
> > > > 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> > > > you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> > > > follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> > > > frame.
> > > The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.
> > > > > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > > > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > > > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > > > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > > > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > > > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > > > > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> > > > Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> > > > on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.
> > > Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ
> > Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.
> I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught, you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and less and you will overcompensate with lying.

You misread what I wrote, of course. I was replying to Tom
when I wrote, "I didn't get around to studying your post until
just now. Now I understand what Dono was blathering about!
He sure didn't explain himself well."

Tom proceeded to tear to shreds your interpretation of Skinner:
"That is not at all a 'minor change' to the MMX, and it is not
at all an adequate description -- I can easily think of ways to
'decouple' arms from source+detector such that SR predicts
no excursion, and other ways for which SR predicts an excursion."
....
"It's also clear that there's no point in attempting to discuss it
until Dono actually describes his apparatus."

I totally agree with Tom. Whatever you were blathering about
was not MMX in any way shape or form.

On that same thread, Paul Alsing, Paul Andersen, and rotchm
also appeared to think that that you had gone off your rocker.

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 7:09:31 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:50:46 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 3:33:17 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 12:47:16 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:28:44 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 6:59:45 AM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 8:42:13 AM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 11:09:09 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > explain please. Why is the pulse axis not vertical in the moving frame?
> > > > > > > > > Even the brainless prokaryote finally woke up to that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because, like you, he is ignorant of basic physics.
> > > > > > > Both you and AG are crackpots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > It is you who are the crackpot. You do not understand basic physics.
> > > > > > Since you are such a stubborn imbecile, I will take pity on you and explain:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the frame co - moving with the "light clock" the angle between the vector "source -receiver" and the velocity of the "receiver" is obviously 90 degrees.
> > > > > > From the perspective of a stationary observer, the angle is, according to relativistic light aberration:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cos \theta'=\frac{cos \theta -v/c}{1-(v/c) cos \theta}
> > > > > >
> > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > cos \theta'=-v/c
> > > > > 1) Everything depends on which you consider "stationary" and
> > > > > which you consider "moving". In my animation, I was considering
> > > > > the light-clock to be "stationary" and the observer to be "moving".
> > > > > You and AG were not clear on which was supposed to be which
> > > > > as you were arguing. Also, AG would one moment be talking about
> > > > > the "beam" of the MMX always being at 90 degrees (of course it is)
> > > > > and the "beam" of the light clock being angled (what beam? The pulses
> > > > > indeed travel at an angle.)
> > > > >
> > > > > You got yourself all strung up in this imprecision.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yhUmtuGA9FhqzUpFf4a8OgPakdZq2Tqa/view?usp=sharing
> > > > > In my animation, I tried to be VERY clear about which observer
> > > > > was which.
> > > > >
> > > > I do not care about the discussion between the two pretentious crackpots: you and Jane.
> > > > > 2) You keep writing about "the angle" as if it were singular. If
> > > > > you haven't noticed, the pulses of the Langevin light clock
> > > > > follow a zig-zag line when viewed from a relatively moving
> > > > > frame.
> > > > The angle (ONE) between the direction of the light beam and the velocity "v" is the same , the trajectory is perfectly symmetrical. So , there is only one angle. Do you need a shovel? Or a pick axe? Because you are digging yourself deeper.
> > > > > > See how simple that is, despicable piece of shit?
> > > > > > > I note that somebody revived the "Dono dunno about MMX"
> > > > > > > thread. Do you ***STILL*** maintain your position that the
> > > > > > > eyepiece is fixed while the rest of the apparatus rotates?
> > > > > > > You could gain a lot of lost credibility in these groups by
> > > > > > > admitting to a simple mistake.
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/SBSEMP9IBgAJ
> > > > > > Turns out that it was YOU who didn't understand what I was talking about. The mere fact that you feel compelled to distract attention from your current misunderstandings is classical crackpot strategy.
> > > > > Hmmm... A lot of people were VERY amused by your antics
> > > > > on that thread. You weren't fooling anybody.
> > > > Yet you were the one eating shit in the end:
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/NrhlEphRucI/m/50NzultLBgAJ
> > > Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.
> > I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught, you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and less and you will overcompensate with lying.
> You misread what I wrote, of course. I was replying to Tom
> when I wrote, "I didn't get around to studying your post until
> just now. Now I understand what Dono was blathering about!
> He sure didn't explain himself well."
>

Unlike you, I read carefully what you wrote: you simply did not get the setup I was talking about because you can only read what you write.

> "It's also clear that there's no point in attempting to discuss it
> until Dono actually describes his apparatus."
>

Actually, I did. Like you, Tom can only listen to himself. This is what makes both of you two a couple of arrogant pricks.

> I totally agree with Tom. Whatever you were blathering about
> was not MMX in any way shape or form.
>

It is a perfectly acceptable modification of the original setup. The bigger question is why are you so intent of employing the standard crank tactics (a la Richard Hertz): when you get your ass whooped , you change the subject of the thread. Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question.

> On that same thread, Paul Alsing, Paul Andersen, and rotchm
> also appeared to think that that you had gone off your rocker.

Funny that you appeal to authority. Especially when one of the "authorities", rotchm (Stephane Baune) is a well known crank, a honor member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. You are in good company....

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 9:34:59 PM UTC-5, Dono. wrote:

> It is a perfectly acceptable modification of the original setup. The bigger question is why are you so intent of employing the standard crank tactics (a la Richard Hertz): when you get your ass whooped , you change the subject of the thread. Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question.

You still have NEVER published a drawing or photo of your apparatus,
for which reason I contend that it does not exist

> > On that same thread, Paul Alsing, Paul Andersen, and rotchm
> > also appeared to think that that you had gone off your rocker.
> Funny that you appeal to authority. Especially when one of the "authorities", rotchm (Stephane Baune) is a well known crank, a honor member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance. You are in good company....

rotchm occasionally has interesting things to say. Although
fringy, especially when he brags about his cars and his
women and his puzzle-solving ability, he is far less so than
***YOU***. Also, I've seen no proof that he and Baune are
the same person.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 20:17:45 -0700, Dono. wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>> The beam remains vertical in all frames.
>
> Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true

Hey idiot, araldite a chainsaw to the top of your car and drive it at c/
2. Does it take any longer for a link to go up and down as seen by a
bystander.

--
-- lover of truth

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 10:38:13 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 07.06.2023 04:56, skrev Androcles' Ghost:
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 17:50:39 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>>
>>> Repeating the same imbecility over and over doesn't make it true.
>>> Hint:
>>> the beam is inclined in the classical interpretation as well.
>>
>> Just plot the bloody thing and see for yourself. It is not very
>> difficult. The beam remains vertical in all frames. You don't have to
>> be a genius to see that ...but you have to be a real idiot to not
>> realise it. Poke it up a hollow vertical pole and drive past it at c/2.
>> You wont see the pole leaning over 30 degrees.
>>
>>
>>
>
> This reminds me: https://paulba.no/div/RalphsLightPulse.pdf

This is interesting. My uncle shares many posts with a Henry Wilson. He
must have been right.
> https://paulba.no/LightClock.html

Are you that Paul Andersen who made such a terrible mess of transforming
the path of a sagnac light beam from the inertial to the rotating frame.
I suppose your light clock article is just as bad. I cannot open it
anyway.

--
-- lover of truth

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:32:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 20:17:45 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> >> The beam remains vertical in all frames.
> >
> > Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true

> 2. Does it take any longer for a link to go up and down as seen by a
> bystander.
>
It sure does, stubborn crank.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 21:04:10 -0700, Trevor Lange wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:16:39 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>> > If N wavecrests have been emitted (and split) by the instant when the
>> > first wavecrests arrive (which you stipulated), then there are N
>> > crests in transit along each path.
>>
>> During a CHANGE in speed...
>
> First, the speed of the mirrors isn't changing during steady operation
> when readings are taken, and second, even if it was changing, the simple
> and irrefutable fact remains that if N wavecrests have been emitted (and
> split) by the instant when the first wavecrests arrive (which you
> stipulated), then at this instant there are N crests in transit along
> each path. This is an unambiguously true statement, as any sentient
> being can see.

Look I am sorry to have to again inform you that you are a quite wrong.
In steady rotation here are already more waves in one path than the
other. The fringe pattern is stationary because the path with more waves
is travelling at c+2v and the other one at c-v. The travel time of both
paths are the same which is why he fringe pattern remains stationary. I
cxancnot ubderstand why you cannot see that. It is very simple.
>> > Wait... later in your message you said "the r=2 is correct", but here
>> > you are saying r=1 is correct. Which is it? The case of no phase
>> > shift is r=2, as explained above. That means the speed coming off the
>> > first moving mirrors is c +- 2v.
>>
>> Sorry I was using the Sagnac ring explanation. The moving mirror
>> experiment is a bit more complicated.
>
> Well, for the 1913 Michelson apparatus, are you claiming r=1 or r=2?
> Both of those would imply a result that is falsified by the actual
> observations. The case that matches the observed result is r=0.

Rubbish. Michelson didn't even know what the ballistic model was about.
The experiment did not measure light speed at all. It measured the
distance the rotating mirror moved while the light went to E and back.
That was determined by d1+d2, To measure the difference in light speeds
of the two paths, he needed to measure d1-d2 which is an extremely small
number.
>> Forget about r. Just consider the Newtonian approach.
>
> The parameter "r" represents the different proposed speeds of light
> after reflection, and the predicted result using Newtonian reasoning in
> each case depends crucially on the value of r, as has been shown. The
> method that Michelson used is exactly the reasoning
g that Newton would
> have used to analyze these cases... except of course Newton wouldn't
> have made the error for the case r=1 that Michelson made.

Newton
>
>> Note, in ballistic theory, there is no wavelength Doppler shift during
>> reflection from a mirror.
>
> That's crazy, Doppler is a first order effect, dependent entirely on the
> rate of change of the distance traveled, which applies in every
> rationally coherent theory. The various theories differ only in the
> second order. Remember the simple question I asked that you were
> unable to answer? The answer to that question is what distinguishes
> between the Doppler effects of the different theories. You simply ran
> away.

More nonsense from you. Light is known to reflect from a mirror at its
incident speed. In the ballistic analysis of the 1913X, light approaches
of D at c+v and reflects at c+v in D's frame. That is c+2v in the source
frame and it reflects off E at that speed. When it reflects of C, its
incoming speed, relative to C, is c+v and so is its reflected speed.
which is c in the source frame. Therefore there is no Doppler shift in
the ballistic analysis.
On the other hand, there is Doppler shift at both C and D in michelson's
method...which he ignored.
> Look, if each phase has equal travel time along both paths, and arrives
> simultaneously at the receiver, the waves are in phase by definition.
> No sentient being could claim that if the split wave crests arrive
> simultaneously, the waves do not have zero phase difference. It is
> completely self-evident.

They arrive simultaneously... but N+n waves arrive from one side and N-n
from the other. It is not hard to work that out.

--
-- lover of truth

On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 07:08:35 -0700, Dono. wrote:

> On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:32:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 20:17:45 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
>> >> The beam remains vertical in all frames.
>> >
>> > Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true
>
>> 2. Does it take any longer for a link to go up and down as seen by a
>> bystander.
>>
> It sure does, stubborn crank.

Correct....but only by the Newtonian Doppler shift which can be corrected
out. Gamma is pure fiction.

--
-- lover of truth

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 16:50:44 -0700, Dono. wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase

>> Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.
>
> I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that
> you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The
> problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something
> that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you
> are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught,
> you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I
> have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and
> less and you will overcompensate with lying.

This is what he said on June 4,
"It is only the most utterly brainless of crackpots who can even CONCEIVE
of a tilted light beam in the light clock gedanken, much less accuse
others of believing in such stupidity."

--
-- lover of truth

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 5:53:08 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> > If N wavecrests have been emitted (and split) by the instant when the
> > first wavecrests arrive (which you stipulated), then there are N
> > crests in transit along each path.
>
> In steady rotation there are already more waves in one path than the
> other.

A man and woman split up as they enter the front of a building, the man walking down the left aisle, and the woman walking down the right aisle. Then another man and woman enter and do the same. Then another, and another, until, at the instant when the first couple is re-united at the back exit, the 10th couple is entering at the front. Not counting the couples at the entrance and exit at this moment, how many men are in the left aisle, and how many women are in the right aisle?

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2023 07:08:35 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 2:32:08 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 20:17:45 -0700, Dono. wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 7:56:08 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote:
> >> >> The beam remains vertical in all frames.
> >> >
> >> > Repeating the same imbecility doesn't make it true
> >
> >> 2. Does it take any longer for a link to go up and down as seen by a
> >> bystander.
> >>
> > It sure does, stubborn crank.
> Correct....but only by the Newtonian Doppler shift which can be corrected
> out. Gamma is pure fiction.
> --
Can't fix crank. Especially when crank is getting older and dementia sets in.

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 8:08:40 PM UTC-5, Jane wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 16:50:44 -0700, Dono. wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:19:02 PM UTC-7, Prokaryotic Capase
> >> Sure, Dono. In your own mind, I'm sure that you think that.
> >
> > I have your admission , see the link. The problem with you is not that
> > you are stupid, you were born this way, there is nothing you can do. The
> > problem is that you are stupid and arrogant, the arrogance is something
> > that you picked up. The only thing that you read is your own stuff, you
> > are incapable of reading anyone else's writing. And when you are caught,
> > you try to weasel out by claiming that the other party "wasn't clear". I
> > have news for you, as you age, your comprehension will become less and
> > less and you will overcompensate with lying.
> This is what he said on June 4,
> "It is only the most utterly brainless of crackpots who can even CONCEIVE
> of a tilted light beam in the light clock gedanken, much less accuse
> others of believing in such stupidity."

Anybody who has been here for a while knows that crackpots such
as Henry Wilson have contended that "relativists" believe that vertical
beams of light will lean over when viewed from a moving frame.

For nearly 20 years, he wrote idiocies such as this:
| "In spite of many idiotic remarks from deluded Einsteinians, I previously
| cleared up the misconception that a vertical beam of light such as one
| from a laser, will lean over diagonally in a moving frame and travel at
| speed c along that diagonal. Rather it will appear as a vertical line
| moving sideways and there is no reason why the time of flight of any of
| its elements should be any different in the moving frame. However...and
| very sadly...the misconception of the principle of this little device
| has become favorite propaganda ammunition for influential dingleberries
| to fire at newbies. (eg., poofessor Brian Cox's TV documentary)"
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/0bWEciKOTQ4/m/NXqeU8IsAQAJ

Over the course of decades, *I and many others* on this on these
groups tried to correct Henry, informing him that EVERYBODY
(including "relativists") know that there is a huge difference between
BEAMS of light and the INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS making up a beam.
A beam of light does not tilt when moved transversely, although the
individual wavelets/photons will obey the rules of velocity composition.

You and Dono are being JUST AS IDIOTIC AS HENRY by attempting
to claim that I, who participated in a fair number of conversations
with Henry on this very point, do not know the difference.

Sheesh!!!