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

xxein:  What's new?

Any proficient physicist can figure that out.

Oh!  I forgot.  We have 'pretend' physicists out there that pervade
our space and tell us how to think.

Hmm.  Where did they get their knowledge from?

I can only guess that they can't think for themselves.  Brilliant,
huh?

OK.  That's unfair.  You have to have some kind of knowledge base to
work with.  What you believe about/within it and profess with it is a
different story.  The typical 'he said, she said comes' to mind as to
how we can get confused as of what has actually happened.

We don't quite (or yet) know the extent of how or what we are
measuring is real as subjective measurement or can be converted into
an objective physic.  This should be a physicist's goal.

So, I guess I am a physicist.  But does a sheepskin on your wall tell
you how to think?