The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
c'= (Ls)(Fd)

On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> c'= (Ls)(Fd)

Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.

Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
the source, for the calculated speed to mean anything.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> > c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> > c'= (Ls)(Fd)
> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>
> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
> the source, for the calculated speed to mean anything.
Stupid Mike, the source wavelength is constant in all frames.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> > c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> > c'= (Ls)(Fd)
> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>
> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
> the source, for the calculated you must speed to mean anything.
You are wrong, the incoming light from the telescope become a local source and thus
you are just measuring the local speed of light.....no surprise there the local speed of light is c.
If you want to measure the speed of incoming light you must use the source wavelength.

On 8/10/2023 10:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
>>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
>>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
>> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>
>> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
>> the source, for the calculated speed to mean anything.

> Stupid Mike, the source wavelength is constant in all frames.

No, it is not. And remember, your assertions are not valid arguments.

On 8/10/2023 10:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
>>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
>>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
>> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>
>> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
>> the source, for the calculated you must speed to mean anything.

> You are wrong, the incoming light from the telescope become a local source

Your assertions are not valid arguments.

> and thus you are just measuring the local speed of light.....no surprise there the local speed of light is c.

No surprise there that the speed of any light is c.

> If you want to measure the speed of incoming light you must use the source wavelength.

You will get a meaningless number, unless you also use the source
frequency. If you do that, you'll get the source speed of light (which
is also c, of course).

If you want to measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
*should* be so obvious that even you, with a third grade education,
should be able to understand it.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 10:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> >>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> >>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
> >> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>
> >> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
> >> the source, for the calculated speed to mean anything.
>
> > Stupid Mike, the source wavelength is constant in all frames.
> No, it is not. And remember, your assertions are not valid arguments.

I was not asserting. Do you deny that the telescope that collect the incoming light become a local source?

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 10:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> >>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> >>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
> >> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>
> >> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
> >> the source, for the calculated you must speed to mean anything.
>
> > You are wrong, the incoming light from the telescope become a local source
> Your assertions are not valid arguments.
> > and thus you are just measuring the local speed of light.....no surprise there the local speed of light is c.
> No surprise there that the speed of any light is c.
> > If you want to measure the speed of incoming light you must use the source wavelength.
> You will get a meaningless number, unless you also use the source
> frequency. If you do that, you'll get the source speed of light (which
> is also c, of course).
>
> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
> should be able to understand it.you do that

Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?

On 8/10/2023 11:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:56:41 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 10:33 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
>>>>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
>>>>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
>>>> the source, for the calculated speed to mean anything.
>>
>>> Stupid Mike, the source wavelength is constant in all frames.

>> No, it is not. And remember, your assertions are not valid arguments.
>
> I was not asserting.

Yes you are. Otherwise you would have references for your assertion
instead of presenting as if it was a well known fact.

> Do you deny that the telescope that collect the incoming light become a local source?

That statement is too vague to give a yes/no answer, but telescopes just
refract/reflect light, they do not create it.

On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 10:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
>>>>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
>>>>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
>>>> the source, for the calculated you must speed to mean anything.
>>
>>> You are wrong, the incoming light from the telescope become a local source
>> Your assertions are not valid arguments.
>>> and thus you are just measuring the local speed of light.....no surprise there the local speed of light is c.
>> No surprise there that the speed of any light is c.
>>> If you want to measure the speed of incoming light you must use the source wavelength.
>> You will get a meaningless number, unless you also use the source
>> frequency. If you do that, you'll get the source speed of light (which
>> is also c, of course).
>>
>> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
>> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
>> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
>> should be able to understand it.you do that
>
> Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....

You are drunk, Stupid Ken.

> the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?

A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
not a light bulb.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2023 10:52 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:21:35 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2023 10:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> >>>>> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> >>>>> c'= (Ls)(Fd)
> >>>> Assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>
> >>>> Besides, you need to use the wavelength and frequency at the target, not
> >>>> the source, for the calculated you must speed to mean anything.
> >>
> >>> You are wrong, the incoming light from the telescope become a local source
> >> Your assertions are not valid arguments.
> >>> and thus you are just measuring the local speed of light.....no surprise there the local speed of light is c.
> >> No surprise there that the speed of any light is c.
> >>> If you want to measure the speed of incoming light you must use the source wavelength.
> >> You will get a meaningless number, unless you also use the source
> >> frequency. If you do that, you'll get the source speed of light (which
> >> is also c, of course).
> >>
> >> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
> >> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
> >> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
> >> should be able to understand it.you do that
> >
> > Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....
> You are drunk, Stupid Ken.
> > the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?
> A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
> not a light bulb.
The process of focusing makes it a local source.

On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:

>>>> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
>>>> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
>>>> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
>>>> should be able to understand it.you do that
>>>
>>> Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....

>> You are drunk, Stupid Ken.

>>> the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?

>> A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
>> not a light bulb.

> The process of focusing makes it a local source.

Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>
> >>>> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
> >>>> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
> >>>> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
> >>>> should be able to understand it.you do that
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....
>
> >> You are drunk, Stupid Ken.
>
> >>> the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?
>
> >> A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
> >> not a light bulb.
>
> > The process of focusing makes it a local source.
> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.

Why not? When the incoming light hits the telescope in the receiving frame that telescope is
becomes a local light source.

On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
>>>>>> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
>>>>>> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
>>>>>> should be able to understand it.you do that
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....
>>
>>>> You are drunk, Stupid Ken.
>>
>>>>> the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?
>>
>>>> A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
>>>> not a light bulb.
>>
>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.

>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>
> Why not?

Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.

> When the incoming light hits the telescope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> becomes a local light source.

Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 20:50:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> >> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Why not?
> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.

Only such an idiot can believe such nonsensical lies,
stupid Mike.

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 1:16:20 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 20:50:21 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>
> > >> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> > >
> > > Why not?
> > Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> > experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
> Only such an idiot can believe such nonsensical lies,
> stupid Mike.

Light has its own motion. That is c in outside atomic space.
The atoms own motion is below light speed. And atom can compete
with light at a motion BH. The atoms competing speed in space can move
ahead of light leaving light behind. Why are they both then not absolute
in their competition?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:45:36 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2023 11:12 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 11:02:15 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> If you want tu are just measuring the sppo measure the speed of light at the destination, you must
> >>>>>> use both the frequency and the wavelength at the destination. This
> >>>>>> *should* be so st measuring the local speed of light.ou are juobvious that even you, with a third grade education,
> >>>>>> should be able to understand it.you do that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid Mike if you door denyou that you are just measuring the local speed of light.....
> >>
> >>>> You are drunk, Stupid Ken.
> >>
> >>>>> the telescope is a local source, do you deny that?
> >>
> >>>> A telescope just focuses existing light. It does not create light, it's
> >>>> not a light bulb.
> >>
> >>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
>
> >> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Why not?
> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.

Current physics is based on assertions.
Example:
1. Virtual particles.
..2. Force messengers.
3. Spacetime

> > When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> > becomes a l.ocal light source.
> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.

Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.

On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
>>
>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>> Why not?

>> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
>> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
>
> Current physics is based on assertions.
> Example:
> 1. Virtual particles.
> .2. Force messengers.
> 3. Spacetime

Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
>
>>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
>>> becomes a l.ocal light source.

You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.

>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
>
> Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.

No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
depends on any of your assertions.

On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:12:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
> >>
> >>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>>
> >>> Why not?
>
> >> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> >> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
> >
> > Current physics is based on assertions.
> > Example:
> > 1. Virtual particles.
> > .2. Force messengers.
> > 3. Spacetime
> Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
> >
> >>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> >>> becomes a l.ocal light source.
> You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.
> >> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
> >
> > Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.
> No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
> assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
> depends on any of your assertions.

ROTFLOL.......you know nothing about real PHYSICS .So how do you now my argument
are not valid????

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> The incoming speed of light from any source is variable:
> c'=(source wavelength Ls)(arriving frequency Fd)
> c'= (Ls)(Fd)

Light would have to have its own c speed in space...
Frame motion does not change that.

On 8/15/2023 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:12:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
>>>>
>>>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>
>>>> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
>>>> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
>>>
>>> Current physics is based on assertions.
>>> Example:
>>> 1. Virtual particles.
>>> .2. Force messengers.
>>> 3. Spacetime
>> Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
>>>
>>>>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
>>>>> becomes a l.ocal light source.
>> You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.
>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
>>>
>>> Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.

>> No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
>> assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
>> depends on any of your assertions.
>
> ROTFLOL.......you know nothing about real PHYSICS .

What I know is more than you'll ever know.

> So how do you now my argument
> are not valid????

All your arguments are assertions without scientific evidence and most
are not even falsifiable. Therefore, they are of no value to physics.

On Tuesday, 15 August 2023 at 23:50:15 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:12:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not?
> >>
> >>>> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> >>>> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
> >>>
> >>> Current physics is based on assertions.
> >>> Example:
> >>> 1. Virtual particles.
> >>> .2. Force messengers.
> >>> 3. Spacetime
> >> Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
> >>>
> >>>>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> >>>>> becomes a l.ocal light source.
> >> You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.
> >>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.
>
> >> No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
> >> assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
> >> depends on any of your assertions.
> >
> > ROTFLOL.......you know nothing about real PHYSICS .
> What I know is more than you'll ever know.

You know that adjusting clocks to your ISO idiocy is some
"Newton mode", for instance. I guess you're the only
person knowing it.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 8/15/2023 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:12:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not?
> >>
> >>>> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> >>>> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
> >>>
> >>> Current physics is based on assertions.
> >>> Example:
> >>> 1. Virtual particles.
> >>> .2. Force messengers.
> >>> 3. Spacetime
> >> Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
> >>>
> >>>>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> >>>>> becomes a l.ocal light source.
> >> You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.
> >>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.
>
> >> No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
> >> assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
> >> depends n''s nonsense ;s on any of your assertions.
> >
> > ROTFLOL.......you know nothing about real PHYSICS .
> What I know is more than you'll ever know.

Yeah, you know more about Einstein's nonsenses than I.
> > So how do you now my argument y
> > are not valid????ou,
> All your arguments are assertions without scientific evidence and most
> are not even falsifiable. Therefore, they are of no value to physics.

Einstein's nonsenses are not science.

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > On 8/15/2023 9:06 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:12:32 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 8/14/2023 8:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:50:21 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>> On 8/11/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 6:56:42 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 8/10/2023 4:38 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> The process of focusing makes it a local source.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid Ken.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Why not?
> > >>
> > >>>> Because the scientific method requires scientific observations and
> > >>>> experimental evidence. Assertions are neither.
> > >>>
> > >>> Current physics is based on assertions.
> > >>> Example:
> > >>> 1. Virtual particles.
> > >>> .2. Force messengers.
> > >>> 3. Spacetime
> > >> Those aren't assertions, Stupid Ken. They are parts of _models_ of physics.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> When the incoming light hits the telesvalid.cope in the receiving frame that telescope is
> > >>>>> becomes a l.ocal light source.
> > >> You're drunk again, Stupid Ken.
> > >>>> Your assertions are not valid arguments, Stupid KenS.
> > >>>
> > >>> Stupid Mike, then all of current physics are not valid.
> >
> > >> No, Stupid Ken. I said your assertions are not valid arguments. Your
> > >> assertions are not the source of any current physics, no current physics
> > >> depends n''s nonsense ;s on any of your assertions.
> > >
> > > ROTFLOL.......you know nothing about real PHYSICS .
> > What I know is more than you'll ever know.
> Yeah, you know more about Einstein's nonsenses than I.
> > > So how do you now my argument y
> > > are not valid????ou,
> > All your arguments are assertions without scientific evidence and most
> > are not even falsifiable. Therefore, they are of no value to physics.
> Einstein's nonsenses are not science.

His was a beginning. He was the first of his kind. And the beginning is
always least objective. The world of science judged Einstein for having a religious God.
As they made him their scientific God... They got him both ways...