On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 00:52:39 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/31/2022 4:13 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
> >> with a definite velocity c."
> >
> > Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
> > nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.
> >
> >
> >> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
> >> at c.
> >
> > No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.
>
> Observers have to observe, drunken janitor. With your head so far up
> your ass the only thing you can observe is scan for colon polyps by
> performing a self-colonoscopy.

And I don't observe your fabricated idiocies. "ALL observers
observe" is an obvious, impudent lie, and only such an idiot
as you can believe it.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.
> >
>
> Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are
> there in our solar system?"
>
> They probably will grab their phone to look it up...
>
> I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the
> answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.)

Now, if you gave everybody in school (1st grade - colleges) a test
question

"How many planets are
there in our solar system?"

Will anyone get the answer right????

That shows you the state of Science today, a mess. Science has failed.

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

On 4/2/2022 12:52 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 00:52:39 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/31/2022 4:13 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
>>>> with a definite velocity c."
>>>
>>> Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
>>> nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
>>>> at c.
>>>
>>> No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.
>>
>> Observers have to observe, drunken janitor. With your head so far up
>> your ass the only thing you can observe is scan for colon polyps by
>> performing a self-colonoscopy.
>
> And I don't observe your fabricated idiocies.

Of course you don't. You are much too busy looking for your own colon
polyps instead, up close and personal. You can't observe anything from
the real world while doing that.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.
> > >
> >
> > Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are
> > there in our solar system?"
> >
> > They probably will grab their phone to look it up...
> >
> > I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the
> > answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.)
>
> Now, if you gave everybody in school (1st grade - colleges) a test
> question
>
> "How many planets are
> there in our solar system?"
>
> Will anyone get the answer right????
>
> That shows you the state of Science today, a mess. Science has failed.

Now, if you ask people is Mars a planet? you get a quick answer, "Yes"!

Is Venus a planet?
Is Mercury a planet? etc, etc...

Now, as them is Pluto a planet?...they become stuttering idiots.

And what is the cause of the stuttering idiots? Science.

Now, ask ALL.. i repeat, ALL the members of the
International Astronomical Union | IAU

is Pluto a planet? ...they all become stuttering idiots.

What size is Pluto? In 1930 the answer was, It is bigger than the Earth.

Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.

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

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 21:01:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/2/2022 12:52 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 00:52:39 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 3/31/2022 4:13 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
> >>>> with a definite velocity c."
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
> >>> nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
> >>>> at c.
> >>>
> >>> No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.
> >>
> >> Observers have to observe, drunken janitor. With your head so far up
> >> your ass the only thing you can observe is scan for colon polyps by
> >> performing a self-colonoscopy.
> >
> > And I don't observe your fabricated idiocies.
> Of course you don't.

So, "ALL observers observe " is an impudent
lie, as expected from a stupid Mike. Qed.

On March 31, rotchm wrote:
>>> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
>>> means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting
>>> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language
>
>> "A wave is always propagated in calm water with a definite velocity d."
>> means that no matter who measures it, they will get d, be it the emitting
>> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language.
>
> Correct. In your above paragraph, we clearly understand your context
> and that "velocity "d" is relative to the body mass of water.

OK

> In the statement "Light is always propagated in empty space with
> a definite velocity c.",
> We clearly understand the contacts and that this velocity is relative
> to all (inertial) Observers.

No. The statement refers to propagation relative to an
inertial CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM, no observers necessary.

One establishes a system of co-ordinates K. Velocity is
defined relative to that. 'Observers' are not needed
to hypothesize any velocity. Therefore, the assertion
about light speed tells nothing about what some observer
will measure, contrary to to your assertion above; i.e. it
doesn't mean "no matter who measures it, they will get c".

Light may propagate at c, relative to system K, but there's
no implication regarding measurements. For that, you have
to invoke the first principle.

The point is, a velocity can be stipulated independently of
any observer. Your belief that velocity, by definition, is
something measured by someone, is incorrect.

K might be a universal ether. Relative to that, as
in water, its speed might be constant, but its measured
speed might depend on the observer (as in water).
Your task is to argue that doesn't happen, without "context".
> Like here, your sentence in my sentence are basically logically identical.
> Yet, they mean totally different things. That is because their context are
> totally different. We understand the intended meaning of the author.

No. If they're logically identical, yet you claim they differ,
the burden is on you to explain that (as Einstein did), without
hand waving about "context". In this case, the context is the
entire paper.

However, your point is taken: "independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body" is redundant: "light always
propagates at c" is comprehensive. Odd for Einstein to
add this, unnecessarily.
--
Rich

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 5:05:41 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
> On March 31, rotchm wrote:
> >>> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
> >>> means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting
> >>> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language
> >
> >> "A wave is always propagated in calm water with a definite velocity d."
> >> means that no matter who measures it, they will get d, be it the emitting
> >> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language.
> >
> > Correct. In your above paragraph, we clearly understand your context
> > and that "velocity "d" is relative to the body mass of water.
>
> OK
>
> > In the statement "Light is always propagated in empty space with
> > a definite velocity c.",
> > We clearly understand the contacts and that this velocity is relative
> > to all (inertial) Observers.
>
> No.

Yes.

> The statement refers to propagation relative to an
> inertial CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM, no observers necessary.

This shows that you do not understand the meaning of the words that you read.
Anyone with a half of brain knowns that CO-ORDINATE SYSTEM or OBSERVER are synonyms
(in our contexts, physics, and more so in SR ). And here we are referring to inertial coord systems/observers.

The rest of your misunderstandings are snipped.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> And I don't observe your fabricated idiocies.
>
> Of course you don't. You are much too busy looking for your own colon
> polyps instead, up close and personal. You can't observe anything from
> the real world while doing that.

I understand what you say. But EU Fails To Approve Russian Coal Ban As
Latest Sanctions Package Delayed Due To “Technical Issue”

Update (1115ET): Is the EU getting cold feet about approving the fifth
package of sanctions against Russia because of the blowback about breaking
the “energy taboo”? It’s unclear – but for whatever reason, a gathering of
EU lawmakers refused to approve what would be the fifth round of sanctions
on Wednesday, citing a “technical issue”.