🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 8, 1:53 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote in sci.physics:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The speed of light is simply a speed.
> > It is 186,000 miles per second.
> > How can any speed be not a relative speed?
> > What makes 186,000 miles per second immune
> > to relative motion?
> > The speed of light can not be constant to all
> > unless it is immune to relative motion.
> > And if it is immune to relative motion, then
> > it is not a "speed" at all.
>
> > Speed can not be "non" relative.
> > :)
>
> > Relativists have created a parodox as the base
> > of thier church foundation.
> > :)
>
> > --
> > James M Driscoll Jr
> > Spaceman
>
> The constant speed axiom (c'=c), being false, was able to produce
> absurdities - length contraction, time dilation etc. - that looked
> like miracles to 20th century people. So Albert the Plagiarist became
> Divine Albert. In 1907 the selfsame Albert (still "the Plagiarist")
> started reintroducing the true principle of variability of the speed
> of light (the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory)
> and so converted his "theory" into an INCONSISTENCY - something much
> more dangerous than just a false theory:
>
> http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> "Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin:
> "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few
> people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories
> of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that
> the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that
> the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how
> the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that
> theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary
> relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not
> absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF
> INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG
> WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
> "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the
> Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there
> is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The
> constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect
> homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a
> special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same
> velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to
> general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of
> light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
> preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
> AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
> SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD;
> indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a
> gravitational potential."

   He would have to, Since it gave a complete shock to both the
Quantum Mechanics
   and Set Theory wanks, when they discovered that molecules don't
weigh zero,
   and sun is only yellow when it's on the dead end of a laser beam.




>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -