🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 1, 12:26 pm, Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
> On May 1, 3:47 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bravo Honest Roberts! The problem is that your "refutation" is
> > somewhat rash - it is based on implicit assumptions concerning
> > MICROSCOPIC events that you (by no means the cleverest Einsteinian)
> > cannot even formulate, let alone justify. Ask your cleverer brothers
> > and they may explain to you that the ESSENTIAL difference between
> > Newton's emission theory of light and Divine Albert's Divine Theory is
> > that the former claims the speed of photons depends on the speed of
> > the MACROSCOPIC source whereas the latter sees no such dependence.
> > Having this ESSENTIAL difference in mind, Honest Roberts, you can
> > start learning the implications of the emission theory:
>
> Emission theory demands that the atomic equivalent of rifles,
> slingshots, bows, air guns and punkin chunkers ALL shoot out
> bullets, rocks, arrows, BBs and pumpkins at the same constant,
> universal speed c, despite the fact that the firing mechanisms of
> these different projectile shooters are all entirely different.
>
> What is so special about c such that tungsten filaments, lasers,
> radio antennas, gamma emitters, and arc lamps all emit photons
> of the same speed?

So the emission theory demands that the speed of photons be always c
relative to the source and this makes it absurd (according to you and
the ubiquitous Tom Roberts); Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity
demands that the speed of photons be always c relative to BOTH THE
SOURCE AND THE OBSERVER and this makes it absolutely rational
(according to you and the ubiquitous Tom Roberts). Don't you feel
silly? The constancy of the speed of light relative to the light
source is not an ESSENTIAL demand (postulate) of the emission theory.
It may prove mistaken and yet, if the speed of light does depend on
the speed of the MACROSCOPIC light source and obeys the equation c'=c
+v where c is the speed of photons relative to the source (not
necessarily constant and possibly dependent on firing mechanisms) and
v is the speed of the source relative to the observer, again the
emission theory is correct and Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity is wrong.

> What is so special about c that neutrinos generated by
> supernova core collapse travel at very nearly the same speed as
> photons?
>
> In special relativity, the constancy of c can be considered a
> simple consequence of spacetime geometry. It is a direct
> consequence of PoR.

Logic is the Achilles' heel of Einsteinians.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com