A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
It is that easy to understand. One must not and cannot conflate the two things.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
The idea that light speed does not share the velocity of the source is exactly what the second postulate claims. Therefore, the second postulate is false.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> The idea that light speed does not share the velocity of the source is exactly what the second
> postulate claims. Therefore, the second postulate is false.

And what do actual exp's say about the matter?

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 20:32:03 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:17:30 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > The idea that light speed does not share the velocity of the source is exactly what the second
> > postulate claims. Therefore, the second postulate is false.
> And what do actual exp's say about the matter?

Actual exp's, like always, say nothing; but
brainwashed fanatic idiots, like always,
have a lot to say.

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.

the sniper needs to be in a vacumm

there is no wind...in a vacumm.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:17:30 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:14:26 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book, Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
> The idea that light speed does not share the velocity of the source is exactly what the second postulate claims. Therefore, the second postulate is false.
Those who, like Einstein, claimed the lack of an ether wind meant light speed is constant, conflated two quite different things. Therefore, by means of elementary logic and science everyone can understand better than Einstein.. The authorities continue to make the same error, including many critics of relativity.

On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:

> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.

Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
book. Did you use a pseudonym?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
> >> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
> >> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
> >> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
> >> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
> >> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
> > ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
> > facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
> > "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
> > Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
> > D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Bright guy, I gave the author. Look again.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
> >> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
> >> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
> >> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
> >> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
> >> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> > "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
> > ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
> > facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
> > "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
> > Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
> > D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
>
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
-Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:48:20 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.

Look in a mirror...

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:16:07 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:48:20 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.
> Look in a mirror...
If you could tell the difference between an ether window and the constancy of the speed of light, you may have provided evidence you have any intelligence at all.

On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
>>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
>>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
>>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
>>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
>>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
>>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
>>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
>>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
>>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
>>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
>>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
>> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
>> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
>>
>>
>> --
>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.

And convincer of the weak minded.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
> >>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
> >>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
> >>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
> >>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
> >>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> >>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
> >>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
> >>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
> >>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
> >>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
> >>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
> >> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
> >> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.
> And convincer of the weak minded.
A strong minded person would acknowledge that Einstein and his followers made an elementary error and were incorrect to think the null result meant the speed of light is constant. It's very easy for a strong minded person to know better than Einstein.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
> >>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
> >>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
> >>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
> >>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
> >>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
> >>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
> >>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
> >>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
> >>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
> >>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
> >>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
> >> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
> >> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
> > -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.
> And convincer of the weak minded.
Your mentality is like the book, "The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook." It presumes we want to change the status quo like children imagining they can change the world. We are just trying to find out the truth by weeding out obvious errors such as conflating the ether wind and the constancy of light speed.

On 7/6/2023 3:32 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
>>>>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
>>>>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
>>>>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
>>>>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
>>>>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
>>>>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
>>>>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
>>>>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
>>>>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
>>>>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
>>>>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
>>>> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
>>>> book. Did you use a pseudonym?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.

>> And convincer of the weak minded.

> A strong minded person would acknowledge that Einstein and his followers made an elementary error and were incorrect to think the null result meant the speed of light is constant. It's very easy for a strong minded person to know better than Einstein.

I have always acknowledged that Einstein *might* have been wrong.

I've been waiting for decades for some sort of demonstration that he
actually was wrong, demonstration beyond "because you say so."

I'm still asking, "Where's the beef?" Clearly you don't know. You have
proved unable to advance science. I've never claimed I could, leaving
me in a "believer" position for lack of anything better.

You do know that your attempts to beat up on me don't advance you
cause, don't you? Arm waving hysteria doesn't cut it.

On 7/6/2023 3:37 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 1:18:01 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 2:48 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:45:06 PM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-07-06 18:14:24 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 11:05:44 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>>>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
>>>>>> wind, it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
>>>>>> source. It does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the
>>>>>> source. It does not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's
>>>>>> speed. It still shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX
>>>>>> did not prove the constancy of the speed of light.
>>>>> "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely
>>>>> ununderstandable (sic), it is not supported by objective matter of
>>>>> facts, it is untenable and as we shall see unnecessary." - Ives
>>>>> "Revision of the Lorentz transformations" as cited in the book,
>>>>> Invariance of Light Speed: Reality or Fiction? by Dr. Joseph Levy (Ph
>>>>> D). I confirmed this in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers.
>>>> Curious. Amazon forgot to include you as an author or editor of that
>>>> book. Did you use a pseudonym?

>>>> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
>>> -Laurence Crossen- detector of dimwits.

>> And convincer of the weak minded.

> Your mentality is like the book, "The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook." It presumes we want to change the status quo like children imagining they can change the world. We are just trying to find out the truth by weeding out obvious errors such as conflating the ether wind and the constancy of light speed.

The problem is that what you claim is obvious isn't.

If it were your function would be complete without your ever questioning
anything.

Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It
> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> constancy of the speed of light.

Of course it didn't.
Why kick down this open door once again?
(and worse, with faulty arguments)

Jan

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> > account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> > it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It
> > does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> > not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> > shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> > constancy of the speed of light.
> Of course it didn't.
> Why kick down this open door once again?
> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
>
> Jan
Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> > account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> > it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It
> > does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> > not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> > shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> > constancy of the speed of light.
> Of course it didn't.
> Why kick down this open door once again?
> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
>
> Jan
Nothing faulty about the arguments. Are you going to stand with Einstein or not? Most still do.

On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source. It
>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
>>> constancy of the speed of light.
>> Of course it didn't.
>> Why kick down this open door once again?
>> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
>>
>> Jan
> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.

Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the
MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's
what all the experimental results stated.

(why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for
belief in a constant speed of light?)

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> >>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source.. It
> >>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> >>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> >>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> >>> constancy of the speed of light.
> >> Of course it didn't.
> >> Why kick down this open door once again?
> >> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
> >>
> >> Jan
> > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.
> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the
> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's
> what all the experimental results stated.
>
> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for
> belief in a constant speed of light?)
This is a well known fact so I'm surprised you don't know. Do you have to accuse anyone of lying?

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
> >>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any wind,
> >>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the source.. It
> >>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
> >>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
> >>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
> >>> constancy of the speed of light.
> >> Of course it didn't.
> >> Why kick down this open door once again?
> >> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
> >>
> >> Jan
> > Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.
> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the
> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's
> what all the experimental results stated.
>
> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for
> belief in a constant speed of light?)
In any case many relativists also assert it, that Einstein asserted it. That's why it is criticized as unwarranted and not supported by the MMX.

On 7/6/2023 8:07 PM, Volney wrote:
> On 7/6/2023 5:46 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 2:07:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A long-distance shot by a sniper (shooting from a train) must take into
>>>> account wind. If the trajectory of the bullet shows the lack of any
>>>> wind,
>>>> it does not show the bullet does not share the velocity of the
>>>> source. It
>>>> does not show the bullet velocity is independent of the source. It does
>>>> not confirm the constancy or invariance of the bullet's speed. It still
>>>> shares the velocity of the source. Therefore, the MMX did not prove the
>>>> constancy of the speed of light.
>>> Of course it didn't.
>>> Why kick down this open door once again?
>>> (and worse, with faulty arguments)
>>>
>>> Jan
>> Because Einstein and many relativists continue to claim the MMX proved
>> the constancy of light speed when that is obviously a stupid
>> conflation. It did not provide any evidence for it at all.
>
> Einstein never claimed the speed of light was constant because of the
> MMX. He stated the speed of light may be constant simply because that's
> what all the experimental results stated.
>
> (why do the anti-relativity cranks have to make up false reasons for
> belief in a constant speed of light?)

Because that's he only way they can rationalize their beliefs.

Appeal to authority seems to help them.