On Saturday, 17 June 2023 at 14:39:14 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.

No, it didn't, and considering the definitions of his time
it was a complete absurd.

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
> >>>
> >>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
> >>> second). That means no constant c.
> >>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
> >>> OR
> >>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
> >>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
> >>> frequency)
> >>> OR
> >>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
> >>> frequency)
> >> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
> >
> > let say the following:
> > There is a light source Xo.
> > Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds.
> > Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c.
> > I disagree.
> > Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>
> Sylvia.
Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity. Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that. It has never been shown by experiment. The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.

Le 17/06/2023 à 17:12, Laurence Clark Crossen a écrit :
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 8:43:37 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>>>>> second). That means no constant c.
>>>>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>>>> OR
>>>>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>>>>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>>>> frequency)
>>>>> OR
>>>>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>>>>> frequency)
>>>> What do you mean by observer-dependent? In my opinion, physics indicates that the speed of light shares the velocity of the source, as in ballistics.
>>>
>>> let say the following:
>>> There is a light source Xo.
>>> Three observers A, B and D are rushing toward Xo at different speeds.
>>> Stand physics says that each of the observers will measure the speed of light from Xo to be c.
>>> I disagree.
>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.

Why ?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 June 2023 at 14:39:14 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>
> No, it didn't, and considering the definitions of his time it was a
> complete absurd.

that's why polakia will never be a country. Mostly an enclave, like
ukronazia, *_but_not_even_that_*. You are fucking traitors, disrespectful
*_nazi_terrorists_*. *_The_extermination_camps_* in polakia were there
*_before_* Hitler entered the scene.

*_South_African_president’s_security_* detail prevented from going to
Russia
https://%72t.com/news/578210-african-president-security-detail-goes-home/
Hungary refused to let the aircraft into its airspace after
*_Polish_authorities_blocked_dozens_of_South_African_security_personnel_*

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 15-June-23 1:59 pm, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> According to Feynman, light "actually always behaves in a ballistic
>> manner".
>
> Cite?

sure.
*_South_African_president’s_security_detail_prevented_from_going_to_Russia_*
Hungary refused to let the aircraft into its airspace
*_after_Polish_authorities_blocked_dozens_of_South_African_security_personnel_*
https://%72t.com/news/578210-african-president-security-detail-goes-home/

A nice lesson the Africans can bring home to share with their fellow,
elected leaders. *_European_"garden"_values._Yay_*!

Poland gets instructions from its master the US. Next time, South Africa
visiting Russia should fly the other route through China.
*_The_collective_west_are_acting_like_Mafias_*. Never trust them,
*_never_*.

It is impossible to understand Poland’s motives in being so offensive and
obstructive to a neutral country unless
*_it_was_on_the_orders_of_their_masters_*. This incident will have
negative repercussions for Poland.

I'm sure when Zelensky flees for his life, that
*_the_west_will_open_its_airspace_to_his_cargo_plane_filled_with_money_*.

This is one more reason for being member of BRISC and keeping away from
apartheid supporters. If *_it_was_not_* for China and Russia support
people would
*_still_mine_blood_diamonds_in_South_Africa_for_the_British_*.

*_South_Africa!_Remember_this_insult_by_Poland_*, where they stopped you
even though you had *_diplomatic_passports_* and are merely
*_protecting_your_president_*! The West is doing everything they can to
kick you in the nuts just *_because_you_do_not_submit_to_the_hegemony_*!
Open your eyes and know who are your friends and who wants to slap you.

On average *_US_spends_$0.33Bn/yr_aid_per_African_state_* and now
*_close_to_$40Bn/yr_on_Ukraine_*. Question am asking,Do you think the
value of 0.3bn African investment supercede the value of 40bn US is
investing in Ukraine

Sometimes i wonder if the Polish are really slavic..
*_always_arslicking_the_Anglo_Saxons_.._*

Well.. Time for Africa to stand on its own. Kick everything out related to
the EUS, *_no_good_did_and_will_come_from_those_creatures_*! Asia and soon
South America is the way to go. Best luck to the most beautiful continent
on so called planet earth. You been raped long enough
*_by_western_crime_syndicates_*!

Poland, the last appendage of nasizm
Sorry, but no delegation will be able to convince Ukraine to make peace.
It is a waste of time. The West wants war. They will have war, alright.

*_Poland_a_desperate_American_proper_nazi_stooge_* just keep on doing
something or its leaders talking some nonsense just be in the ' News '.
Ignore them, give them same treatment when the time comes. Just don't pay
attention *_to_this_warmonger_nation_with_corrupted_people_*.

*_EU_has_shown_its_true_color_..._* This only happen because Africa sides
with Russia.

*_The_west_threatened_any_government_going_to_the_ST_Petersburg_forum_*
with *_repercussions_*. I’m not at all surprised that Poland would pull
this kinda thing, it’s right up there alley. Though I’m very surprised and
confused about Hungary. Maybe they are factions in the Hungarian
government there are undermining the Orban government.

Now *_the_South_Africans_can_see_firsthand_and_everyone_around_the_world_*
can see plainly with eyes wide open
*_what_type_of_lowlifes_Russia_is_dealing_with_*. They actually did Russia
a favor by *_exposing_themselves_so_blatantly_* as lower than elementary
grade school children and *_couldn't_even_constrain_themselves_* from
behaving *_so_disgustingly_for_a_few_minutes_*. This WILL have diplomatic
repercussions vis-a-vis South Africa and its diplomatic stance toward the
Eastern European states, and throughout Africa and the global-south as a
whole.

Action of *_prostitutes_or_what_the_west_is_turning_into_*, because they
are *_the_whore_of_Babylon_*.

We should host the talks in Africa,let them now come to African

*_Harrasing_South_Africa_is_no_coincidence_*, they try to exert pressure
in regards to the Brics meeting taking place there.

The west is out of control. Hopefully their tyranny along with the U.S
comes to an end

Do *_the_fools_running_these_countries_*, Poland, Hungary ever thinks how
daft this makes them look outside the Western school yard

On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.

> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.

"Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.

> Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.

No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c,
regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create
the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew
why it was so, just that it was so.

Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some
unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.

> It has never been shown by experiment.

Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He
wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.

> The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.

The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
> >> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
> >> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
> >> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
> > Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.
> "Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.
> > Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.
> No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c,
> regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create
> the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew
> why it was so, just that it was so.
>
> Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some
> unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.
> > It has never been shown by experiment.
> Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
> Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He
> wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.
> > The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.
> The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.
You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others. No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that. The source of his and your difficulty is the failure to distinguish between a lack of an ether wind and constancy of the speed of light. The MMX does not show what you are claiming. The Doppler shift proves you are wrong. The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:

> > ... A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
> > Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place.

> You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others.

You are confused. He is stating facts. Prior to special relativity, all experiments were showing that the speed of light is independent of the source and observer.

> No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that.

So now you are resorting to lies to try to defend yourself. Are you a reality denier?

> The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

How would you know when you can't even do basic math?
You can't even solve high school math problems, so you are in no position to discuss math or physics.
This news group is not for you.

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 10:43:15 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:45:27 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 6:14:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 3:10:53 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
> > > > > second). That means no constant c.
> > > > Not even wrong. You don't understand the pre-1905 physics to begin with
> > > > (let alone Einstein's theory). You don't even understand how science
> > > > works in general.
> > > >
> > > > Pick a different hobby, this one is a waste of time for you.
> > > inning of that phrase mean
> > > you don't understand what I said so you insert the meaningless phrase " not even wrong" .I doubt that you understand what the true meaning of that phrase.
> > Again: what you wrote was not even wrong. You have no idea what science
> > is and how it's supposed to work. Your complaints about the speed of light
> > constancy are exactly like saying "2+2 cannot be 5 because it's 17". It's all
> > just nonsense talk that you post here. Complete nonsense.
> >
> Go ahead and argue against these facts:
> 1. The speed of anything is observer dependent.
> 2. There is no unit of clock time (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of time in different frames.
>
> I you can't than I would conclude that you were just talking trash

What you wrote above has nothing to do with you claim (which is not even wrong).

Physics is simply not for you. Do something else that you can be good at instead.
Physics will only be an endless stream of frustration for you because you'll never
get anywhere with this.

--
Jan

On 17-June-23 9:42 am, Carlos L wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de junio de 2023 a las 0:10:53 UTC+2, Ken Seto escribió:
>> 1. The natural law of physics say speed of anything (including light)) is observer dependent.
>>
>> 2. There is no universal constant unit of time amount of time (inclufimg a clock
>> second). That means no constant c.
>> 1 second in A's frame = 1/gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>> OR
>> 1 second in A's frame = gamma seconds in B;s frame.
>>
>> 3. Replace "c" in every SR equation with:
>> c'= gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
>> OR
>> c'= 1/gamma(measured in coming wavelength)(measured in coming
>> frequency)
>
>
> How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to such frame?
> Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction) that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

Clearly, you've never read Einstein's paper, whether in the original
German, or in translation, because it contains no such hypothesis about
either time dilation, or space contraction.

Getting your understanding of special relativity from popular science
descriptions is never going to be a good idea.

Sylvia.

On 6/17/2023 7:41 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
>> On 6/17/2023 11:12 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 5:39:14 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 17-June-23 5:55 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>> Einstein forced each of them to measure the speed of light from Xo to be "c" by inventing time dilation and length contraction..I disagree, There is no absolute time dilation and no physical length contraction,
>>>> He did neither of those things. He asked what the consequences would be
>>>> if it were the case that the speed of light were the same for all
>>>> observers, as the experimental evidence indicated.
>>> Of course the speed of light (and everything else) has relative (additive) velocity.
>> "Of course" is a phrase that shouldn't be used in physics.
>>> Therefore it is both observer dependent and source dependent. Einstein did not ask that, he asserted that.
>> No, Einstein saw that all experiments showed the speed of light was c,
>> regardless of the motion of the source or observer. He did not create
>> the idea of constant speed of light. It was already known. Nobody knew
>> why it was so, just that it was so.
>>
>> Einstein figured a constant speed of light was the result of some
>> unknown law of physics. He made it a postulate for his SR paper.
>>> It has never been shown by experiment.
>> Wrong. A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
>> Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place. He
>> wanted to see what the consequences of a constant speed of light were.
>>> The Doppler shift of light is caused by this relative velocity and proves it's speed depends on the motion of the source and observer.
>> The relativistic Doppler effect, of course.

> You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others. No, Einstein did not "see" that because no experiments showed that.

Your delusions are irrelevant. It was known before Einstein came along
that the speed of light was always measured as c, regardless of motion
of the source or observer. As I said, Einstein didn't come up with the
idea of a constant speed of light, because all experiments showed the
speed of light was always c.

Cranks always want to "blame" Einstein for coming up with the constant
speed of light, but it simply isn't true. The constant speed of light
was already a known experimental result.

> The source of his and your difficulty is the failure to distinguish between a lack of an ether wind and constancy of the speed of light.

Not relevant. The constant speed of light was and is an experimental
result. Experimental results of a constant speed of light obviously
disprove claims that the speed of light is not constant.

> The MMX does not show what you are claiming.

The MMX is consistent with several theories, including ballistic light
and a constant speed of light. It neither confirms nor disproves a
constant speed of light. It merely disproved the most common aether
theory of the time.

> The Doppler shift proves you are wrong. The relativistic Doppler is a mathematical lie.

How could it be a "mathematical lie" if it is consistent with all
observations which produce a Doppler shift?

On Sunday, 18 June 2023 at 02:10:42 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 7:41:39 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > ... A constant speed of light was already known by experiments before
> > > Einstein's time. That's why he worked on SR in the first place.
> > You can have your etiquette just don't impose it on others.
> You are confused. He is stating facts. Prior to special relativity, all experiments were showing that the speed of light is independent of the source and observer.

Only idiots like you or stupid Mike can believe such an
impudent lie.

How do you know a frames motion in space?
If it cannot be marked how do we get to frames
not being at absolute rest? What is the motion
in space of light and atoms?
At a motion black hole atoms compete
with light motion... does that not make
them equally absolute?

Mitchell Raemsch

Volney wrote:

> Cranks always want to "blame" Einstein for coming up with the constant
> speed of light, but it simply isn't true. The constant speed of light
> was already a known experimental result.

yes sure, but absolutely. Anyone who went to secondary school is aware of
what happened to Napoleon (1812), Hitler (1943) and
*_the_Nazi_Azov_battalions_at_the_Mariupol_Severdonesk_chemical_plant_(2022)_*
and could therefore anticipate what arrives at US-UK-NATO-Nazis in Ukraine
today.

Stolenburg, you might want to revise your history lessons since you are in
denial about
*_your_miserable_bloody_defeats_in_Mariupol_Soledar_Bakhmut_*.

if these tanks *_are_shipped_to_the_nazi_uKurine_*, then Russia and China
do have *_all_the_legal_rights_*, to *_sink_those_ships_* at the bottom of
the ocean. The putina has to stop thinking it's illegal. It's not illegal
to stop a war.

*_Something_Big_is_Coming_* - Parts 2 & 3
https://b%69%74%63hute.com/video/0MJiMwSFRS4v

Unbelievable how NATO managed to gather such a number of military
incompetents and how they surrender they duties to more incompetent
politicians. Dangerous times ahead for the west.

Calling it "Ukrainian counter offensive " is just a Jock, When the whole
world knows the reality of *_west_coalition_against_one_Russia_* and
Russia is playing it well by Gods grace

I am sharing this because I want everyone to enjoy this. The following
lines are from CNN:
Ukrainian forces have suffered losses in heavy equipment and soldiers as
they met greater than expected resistance from Russian forces in their
first attempt to breach Russian lines in the east of the country in recent
days, two senior US officials tell CNN.

One US official described the losses – which include US supplied MRAP
armored personnel vehicles *_as_“significant”_*.

On 6/16/23 6:42 PM, Carlos L wrote:
> How can it be that the speed of light in vacuum has always a specific
> value "c" relative to the inertial reference frame in which it is
> measured and does not depend on the speed of the source relative to
> such frame?

SR models this as due to the different orientations of the measuring
instruments that are at rest in different inertial frames.

> Special Relativity tries to explain it making ad hoc
> unphysical hypothesis (about time dilation and space contraction)
> that lead to paradoxes and contradictions.

Not true. You need to learn about the ACTUAL theory, and not some
guesswork like this.

> An alternate explanation [...]

That's no explanation, that;s just word salad.

Tom Roberts