On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 9:02:45 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376
>
> The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as per Newton:
>
> "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>
> So in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v. The crucial question is:
>
> Was the experiment simultaneously, in 1887, compatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905?
>
> The answer "yes" is too blatantly fraudulent, even by the standards of the Einstein cult, so Einsteinians don't discuss this question. Only Banesh Hoffmann did, but his implicit answer was "no":
>
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

Einstein (I mean Wien, the real author of the 1905 paper), used this trick of (c+v) and (c-v) to obtain Lorentz, also with the introduction
of Gamma hidden as an inocuous "a" parameter, for which the paper was acused of fraudulent for using the fallacy of "petitio principii".

This is at plain sight in "§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times", to differentiate from Lorentz 1904, who just plugged the factor
squared as an "auxiliary" parameter. The only that had derived Gamma was Voigt, with basic algebra and geometry.

But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, cretin kapo Richard Hertz wrote:

> But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,

Repeating the same imbecilities you posted multiple times earlier doesn't make i]them correct. The speeds c+v, c-v are closing speeds, cretinoid.

Op 17-feb.-2022 om 02:07 schreef Richard Hertz:

>
> But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
> IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.
>

You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
left at speed c.
In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
and the signal is L2 + L1 = c/T + v/T = (c+v)/T.
So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c+v),
where everything is measured by *you*.
This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
I would measure the light to travel at (c+v) as measured by me.

You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
right at speed c.
In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
and the signal is L2 - L1 = c/T - v/T = (c-v)/T.
So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c-v),
where everything is measured by *you*.
This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
I would measure the light to travel at (c-v) as measured by me.

The exercise was to find out what would happen if I would measure
both light signals (sent by you with speed c as measured by you) to
*also* travel at c, as measured by myself, if I would be riding with
the bullet.
The idea was to see what happens if we let go of the old assumption
that dictated that it would be (c+v) or (c-v).
Indeed, it had always been an assumption. Nobody had ever really
done an experiment or a measurement to actually *verify* the old
assumption with *sufficient precision*.

So what happened? Special relativity happened.
It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
with the new assumption to begin with.
But some modifications had to be made to Newtonian physics. These
modifications turn out to be observationally and numerically
insignificant for most every day velocities ( v << c ), which is
why none of this had been discovered, or suspected, or assumed
before around 1900 or so.
The modifications are only important for velocities closer to the
speed of light.

The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as
speeds of light signals as measured by someone riding with the
bullet, or the mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just
rates at which the distance between two things (of which we
know the speeds) change.

I don't see what could be frightening about this.

Dirk Vdm

On Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 11:51:40 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
> It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
> theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
> with the new assumption to begin with.

Unfortunately, what professionals need differs from what
a fanatic idiot brainwashed by an insane cult needs. Thus,
forbidden by your Shit TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-feb.-2022 om 02:07 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >
> > But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
> > IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.
> >
> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
> left at speed c.
> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
> and the signal is L2 + L1 = c/T + v/T = (c+v)/T.
> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c+v),
> where everything is measured by *you*.
> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
> I would measure the light to travel at (c+v) as measured by me.
>
> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
> right at speed c.
> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
> and the signal is L2 - L1 = c/T - v/T = (c-v)/T.
> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c-v),
> where everything is measured by *you*.
> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
> I would measure the light to travel at (c-v) as measured by me.
>
> The exercise was to find out what would happen if I would measure
> both light signals (sent by you with speed c as measured by you) to
> *also* travel at c, as measured by myself, if I would be riding with
> the bullet.
> The idea was to see what happens if we let go of the old assumption
> that dictated that it would be (c+v) or (c-v).
> Indeed, it had always been an assumption. Nobody had ever really
> done an experiment or a measurement to actually *verify* the old
> assumption with *sufficient precision*.
>
> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
> It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
> theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
> with the new assumption to begin with.
> But some modifications had to be made to Newtonian physics. These
> modifications turn out to be observationally and numerically
> insignificant for most every day velocities ( v << c ), which is
> why none of this had been discovered, or suspected, or assumed
> before around 1900 or so.
> The modifications are only important for velocities closer to the
> speed of light.
>
> The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as
> speeds of light signals as measured by someone riding with the
> bullet, or the mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
> Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just
> rates at which the distance between two things (of which we
> know the speeds) change.
>
> I don't see what could be frightening about this.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dirk, enlighten me about the closing speed of colliding photons emitted by protons at 0.999999995 c
within the LHC, when two bunch of protons collide head-to-head.

Did each one "observed the other" moving at 2 x 0.999999995 c, 2 x 1.999999995 c, 2 c or just c?.

https://cms.cern/news/lhc-photon-collider

"Sometimes, something very different happens. As they fly through the LHC, the accelerating protons radiate photons, the quanta of light. If two protons going in opposite directions fly very close to one another within CMS, photons radiated from each can collide together and produce new particles, just as in proton collisions. The two parent protons remain completely intact but recoil as a result of this photon-photon interaction: they get slightly deflected from their original paths but continue circulating in the LHC. We can determine whether the photon interactions took place by identifying these deflected protons, thus effectively treating the LHC as a photon collider and adding a new probe to our toolkit for exploring fundamental physics."

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
>> The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as speeds of
>> light signals as measured by someone riding with the bullet, or the
>> mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
>> Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just rates
>> at which the distance between two things (of which we know the speeds)
>> change. I don't see what could be frightening about this. Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, enlighten me about the closing speed of colliding photons emitted
> by protons at 0.999999995 c within the LHC, when two bunch of protons
> collide head-to-head. Did each one "observed the other" moving at 2 x
> 0.999999995 c, 2 x 1.999999995 c, 2 c or just c?.

he is a strong believer in the manned moon landing 1969, 53 years ago.

Op 17-feb.-2022 om 23:13 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 17-feb.-2022 om 02:07 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
>>> IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.
>>>
>> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
>> left at speed c.
>> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
>> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
>> and the signal is L2 + L1 = c/T + v/T = (c+v)/T.
>> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c+v),
>> where everything is measured by *you*.
>> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
>> I would measure the light to travel at (c+v) as measured by me.
>>
>> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
>> right at speed c.
>> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
>> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
>> and the signal is L2 - L1 = c/T - v/T = (c-v)/T.
>> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c-v),
>> where everything is measured by *you*.
>> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
>> I would measure the light to travel at (c-v) as measured by me.
>>
>> The exercise was to find out what would happen if I would measure
>> both light signals (sent by you with speed c as measured by you) to
>> *also* travel at c, as measured by myself, if I would be riding with
>> the bullet.
>> The idea was to see what happens if we let go of the old assumption
>> that dictated that it would be (c+v) or (c-v).
>> Indeed, it had always been an assumption. Nobody had ever really
>> done an experiment or a measurement to actually *verify* the old
>> assumption with *sufficient precision*.
>>
>> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
>> It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
>> theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
>> with the new assumption to begin with.
>> But some modifications had to be made to Newtonian physics. These
>> modifications turn out to be observationally and numerically
>> insignificant for most every day velocities ( v << c ), which is
>> why none of this had been discovered, or suspected, or assumed
>> before around 1900 or so.
>> The modifications are only important for velocities closer to the
>> speed of light.
>>
>> The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as
>> speeds of light signals as measured by someone riding with the
>> bullet, or the mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
>> Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just
>> rates at which the distance between two things (of which we
>> know the speeds) change.
>>
>> I don't see what could be frightening about this.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, enlighten me about the closing speed of colliding photons emitted by protons at 0.999999995 c
> within the LHC, when two bunch of protons collide head-to-head.
>
> Did each one "observed the other" moving at 2 x 0.999999995 c, 2 x 1.999999995 c, 2 c or just c?.

PHotons (that is, light signals) can never be considered as "observers"
or reference frames. They don't "observe the other" and you cannot fly
along one to do that.
In the all frames (of the lab and of the pRotons) all pHotons have
speed c in opposite directions, and so the closing speed of the
pHotons is 2c, as measured in these frames.

If both protons go a speed v (<c) in opposite directions, then their
closing speed in the lab frame is 2v.

In the frame of pRoton1, the lab goes at speed v to the right, and
in the lab frame frame pRoton2 goes at speed v to the right.
One of the consequences of the basic assumption of special relativity
is that in the frame of pRoton1, pRoton2 will have speed
2v / (1+v^2/c^2)

Good grief, did you say you were an ENGINEER?
S E R I O U S L Y ?
Try this:
https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/search/2/image?phrase=self+spoon+feeding

Dirk Vdm

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:28:47 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-feb.-2022 om 23:13 schreef Richard Hertz:
> > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 17-feb.-2022 om 02:07 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >>>
> >>> But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
> >>> IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.
> >>>
> >> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
> >> left at speed c.
> >> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
> >> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
> >> and the signal is L2 + L1 = c/T + v/T = (c+v)/T.
> >> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c+v),
> >> where everything is measured by *you*.
> >> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
> >> I would measure the light to travel at (c+v) as measured by me.
> >>
> >> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
> >> right at speed c.
> >> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
> >> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
> >> and the signal is L2 - L1 = c/T - v/T = (c-v)/T.
> >> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c-v),
> >> where everything is measured by *you*.
> >> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
> >> I would measure the light to travel at (c-v) as measured by me.
> >>
> >> The exercise was to find out what would happen if I would measure
> >> both light signals (sent by you with speed c as measured by you) to
> >> *also* travel at c, as measured by myself, if I would be riding with
> >> the bullet.
> >> The idea was to see what happens if we let go of the old assumption
> >> that dictated that it would be (c+v) or (c-v).
> >> Indeed, it had always been an assumption. Nobody had ever really
> >> done an experiment or a measurement to actually *verify* the old
> >> assumption with *sufficient precision*.
> >>
> >> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
> >> It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
> >> theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
> >> with the new assumption to begin with.
> >> But some modifications had to be made to Newtonian physics. These
> >> modifications turn out to be observationally and numerically
> >> insignificant for most every day velocities ( v << c ), which is
> >> why none of this had been discovered, or suspected, or assumed
> >> before around 1900 or so.
> >> The modifications are only important for velocities closer to the
> >> speed of light.
> >>
> >> The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as
> >> speeds of light signals as measured by someone riding with the
> >> bullet, or the mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
> >> Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just
> >> rates at which the distance between two things (of which we
> >> know the speeds) change.
> >>
> >> I don't see what could be frightening about this.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Dirk, enlighten me about the closing speed of colliding photons emitted by protons at 0.999999995 c
> > within the LHC, when two bunch of protons collide head-to-head.
> >
> > Did each one "observed the other" moving at 2 x 0.999999995 c, 2 x 1.999999995 c, 2 c or just c?.
> PHotons (that is, light signals) can never be considered as "observers"
> or reference frames. They don't "observe the other" and you cannot fly
> along one to do that.
> In the all frames (of the lab and of the pRotons) all pHotons have
> speed c in opposite directions, and so the closing speed of the
> pHotons is 2c, as measured in these frames.
>
> If both protons go a speed v (<c) in opposite directions, then their
> closing speed in the lab frame is 2v.
>
> In the frame of pRoton1, the lab goes at speed v to the right, and
> in the lab frame frame pRoton2 goes at speed v to the right.
> One of the consequences of the basic assumption of special relativity
> is that in the frame of pRoton1, pRoton2 will have speed
> 2v / (1+v^2/c^2)
>
> Good grief, did you say you were an ENGINEER?
> S E R I O U S L Y ?
> Try this:
> https://www.istockphoto.com/fr/search/2/image?phrase=self+spoon+feeding
>
> Dirk Vdm

The atom has its speed moving toward or away from light speed.
This is closing velocity below 2C... each obeying the speed limit anyway...

On 2/17/2022 5:13 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:51:40 AM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 17-feb.-2022 om 02:07 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> But using (c+v) and (c-v) violates the constancy of c, and it's not a matter of kinematical "closing speed". It was a search of a method,
>>> IN DISPAIR, to introduce 1/(c² - v²) factor in § 2. This shameful method was never again used by the fucker.
>>>
>> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
>> left at speed c.
>> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
>> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
>> and the signal is L2 + L1 = c/T + v/T = (c+v)/T.
>> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c+v),
>> where everything is measured by *you*.
>> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
>> I would measure the light to travel at (c+v) as measured by me.
>>
>> You shoot a bullet to the right at speed v and a light signal to the
>> right at speed c.
>> In a time T on your clock, the bullet covers a distance L1 = v/T, and
>> the light covers a distance L2 = c/T. The distance between the bullet
>> and the signal is L2 - L1 = c/T - v/T = (c-v)/T.
>> So the distance between bullet and signal increases at a rate (c-v),
>> where everything is measured by *you*.
>> This does not imply that, if *I* would be travelling with the bullet,
>> I would measure the light to travel at (c-v) as measured by me.
>>
>> The exercise was to find out what would happen if I would measure
>> both light signals (sent by you with speed c as measured by you) to
>> *also* travel at c, as measured by myself, if I would be riding with
>> the bullet.
>> The idea was to see what happens if we let go of the old assumption
>> that dictated that it would be (c+v) or (c-v).
>> Indeed, it had always been an assumption. Nobody had ever really
>> done an experiment or a measurement to actually *verify* the old
>> assumption with *sufficient precision*.
>>
>> So what happened? Special relativity happened.
>> It turned out that nothing needed to be changed to the existing
>> theory of electromagnetism, which had always been fully compliant
>> with the new assumption to begin with.
>> But some modifications had to be made to Newtonian physics. These
>> modifications turn out to be observationally and numerically
>> insignificant for most every day velocities ( v << c ), which is
>> why none of this had been discovered, or suspected, or assumed
>> before around 1900 or so.
>> The modifications are only important for velocities closer to the
>> speed of light.
>>
>> The quantities (c+v) and (c-v) are carefully nowhere used as
>> speeds of light signals as measured by someone riding with the
>> bullet, or the mirror, or the train, or whatever you fancy.
>> Such quantities are given a name: closing speeds. They are just
>> rates at which the distance between two things (of which we
>> know the speeds) change.
>>
>> I don't see what could be frightening about this.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Dirk, enlighten me about the closing speed of colliding photons emitted by protons at 0.999999995 c
> within the LHC, when two bunch of protons collide head-to-head.
>
> Did each one "observed the other" moving at 2 x 0.999999995 c, 2 x 1.999999995 c, 2 c or just c?.

I'm not Dirk, but if you use the relativistic speed formula with both
speeds as c, you'll just get c.

Closing speed is the combining of two speeds as seen by a third
observer. The observer simply adds the speeds, but note that nothing is
actually going at the summed speed.
>
> https://cms.cern/news/lhc-photon-collider
>
> "Sometimes, something very different happens. As they fly through the LHC, the accelerating protons radiate photons, the quanta of light. If two protons going in opposite directions fly very close to one another within CMS, photons radiated from each can collide together and produce new particles, just as in proton collisions. The two parent protons remain completely intact but recoil as a result of this photon-photon interaction: they get slightly deflected from their original paths but continue circulating in the LHC. We can determine whether the photon interactions took place by identifying these deflected protons, thus effectively treating the LHC as a photon collider and adding a new probe to our toolkit for exploring fundamental physics."
>
As I understand it, photon-photon interaction is very rare but not
impossible. It is modeled as one photon briefly being a virtual
electron-positron pair (or other particle pair) and the other photon
interacts with the virtual electron/positron and things happen.