pentcho valev

A few years ago Einstein's hypnotists found it suitable to make some
more money by challenging Einstein's principle of constancy of the
speed of light:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific
formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the
speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic
constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick
scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant
at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in
Science is just around the corner?"

The "maverick scientists" created various "Variable Speed of Light"
theories, became famous, got enough money and of course there was no
Great Revolution in Science around the corner. So now there are no
shock and horror in Einstein's cult and the selfsame Paul Davies can
happily return to the original idiocy based on Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2007/02/23/news/699963
"For this prof, it's only a matter of time.....Davies said an object
traveling at a given speed experiences time slower relative to a
stationary object. The faster the object moves, the slower it
experiences time, he said. If a man traveled at 99 percent the speed
of light for a certain amount of time to a point in space, then turned
around and came back, he would find people on Earth aged years more
than he did."

There is another reason why relativity hypnotists experience so much
happiness now. The "maverick scientists" managed to discredit the true
principle of variability of the speed of light (c'=c(1+V/c^2) or c'=c
+v) that Einstein himself introduced when he did not know how else to
explain the gravitational redshift. So when one tries to explain that
the speed of light is variable the standard reaction is something like
this: "What? Variable speed of light? Magueijo's theory? That is not
serious!"

Pentcho Valev

hw

What the idiots can't accept is that 'c' is a very important universal constant
that has dimension LT^-1 and just happens to also be the speed of light wrt its
source. Why? We don't know...because nobody has bothered to investigate
following the hijacking of physics by Einsteiniana.


Load of crap...but they make a lot of money saying it very nicely...

Nobody has ever measure the OW speed of light and there has never been a
comparison between light speed from two diffferently moving sources.

OWLS has an infinite number of values.

Keep up the good work Pentcho.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

shubee

The reason a variable speed of light is not serious is that the
Lorentz transformation equations (and therefore all the experimentally
verified effects of special relativity) can be derived from the
relativity postulate alone. The spacetime structure constant isn't
zero. Therefore there is an ultimate speed limit for every observer.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

Shubee

pentcho valev

A few years ago relativity hypnotists (e.g. Tom Roberts on this forum)
would all have agreed with you ********ly but now you can only have
their secret sympathy. This aspect of the problem with Einstein's
false second postulate has already been discussed:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/9da1d9ac3b2e9ac2?

Pentcho Valev

ahmed ouahi, architect

The point in a fact, is the speed of light has had ever been determined with
an exactitude, for the simple reason, that is something which it does change
from a second to an other, whether it has had been a just a coventional to
serve as a base to any matter along any calculations all along, and this a
simply what is all about.

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

wine

tha pseed of light is everithin but constant

it depends on tha medium it propagates

and when is dark is zero becus no light

but c is somthin else, but still as light, not
constant, but depends on curvature and
density of ether

shubee

Pentcho,

That excellent thread you refer to only indicates that Einstein's
second postulate is superfluous and epistemologically misleading.
That's not equivalent to being false. The moral failure of most
physicists like Tom Roberts in being too cowardly to openly admit to
the evidence that Einstein is worshiped, that Einstein's second
postulate is epistemologically misleading and that "The Axiomatization
of Physics - Step 1" is a valid approach to special relativity, only
proves that mainstream physics has a close connection to occult
science.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

hw

The value of the universal constant known as 'c' has been very accurately
measured.
Any TWLS experiment in which the 'mirror' is at rest wrt the source will
provide its value. (in flat gravity).
The OW speed of light is always initially c wrt its own source ..."Why?' is a
good question that is unlikely to be answered while Einsteiniana continues to
derail physics..
OWLS from relatively moving sources can have any practical value, c+v.

As far as I know, OWLS from relatively moving sources has never been directly
measured or even compared.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

pentcho valev

A few years ago Einstein's hypnotists found it suitable to make some
more money by challenging Einstein's principle of constancy of the
speed of light:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific
formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the
speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic
constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick
scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant
at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in
Science is just around the corner?"

The "maverick scientists" created various "Variable Speed of Light"
theories, became famous, got enough money and of course there was no
Great Revolution in Science around the corner. So now there are no
shock and horror in Einstein's cult and the selfsame Paul Davies can
happily return to the original idiocy based on Einstein's false
principle of constancy of the speed of light:

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2007/02/23/news/699963
"For this prof, it's only a matter of time.....Davies said an object
traveling at a given speed experiences time slower relative to a
stationary object. The faster the object moves, the slower it
experiences time, he said. If a man traveled at 99 percent the speed
of light for a certain amount of time to a point in space, then turned
around and came back, he would find people on Earth aged years more
than he did."

There is another reason why relativity hypnotists experience so much
happiness now. The "maverick scientists" managed to discredit the true
principle of variability of the speed of light (c'=c(1+V/c^2) or c'=c
+v) that Einstein himself introduced when he did not know how else to
explain the gravitational redshift. So when one tries to explain that
the speed of light is variable the standard reaction is something like
this: "What? Variable speed of light? Magueijo's theory? That is not
serious!"

Pentcho Valev

igor

Which is it? Variable or non-invariant? There is a really big
difference. Or don't you understand that? Something, such as the
length of a worldline, could be a variable but it's still invariant.