Science > Physics > TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
13 Apr 2007 01:47:14 AM |
| Object: |
TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 11:17:05 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.201674.174630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is
NOT c=299792km/s is it.
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
But autistic imbeciles never listen to what people say to
them, do they, Pentcho?
Perhaps, vis a vis autistic imbeciles, people should't take
the trouble to carefully, patiently and repeatedly explain
the differences between:
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 11:29:59 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.201674.174630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is
NOT c=299792km/s is it.
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
Ask them again Moortel. They may have said "being in a gravitational
FIELD".
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 11:32:54 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176481799.269020.38060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.201674.174630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is
NOT c=299792km/s is it.
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
Ask them again Moortel. They may have said "being in a gravitational
FIELD".
Valev, you are the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 11:36:21 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176481799.269020.38060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.201674.174630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is
NOT c=299792km/s is it.
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
Ask them again Moortel. They may have said "being in a gravitational
FIELD".
Valev, you are the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
Ask them anyway.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 12:04:51 PM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176482181.489782.250840@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176481799.269020.38060@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1176446834.201674.174630@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/c436f54853449465?scoring=d&
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&storyID=26568
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is
NOT c=299792km/s is it.
Yes it is.
The LOCALLY measured speed is.
Look:
The L O C A L L Y measured speed.
Try harder:
T H E L O C A L L Y M E A S U R E D S P E E D.
I wonder.... can autistic imbeciles read, and if they can,
do they really allow the information to penetrate, and if
they do, does the information really make a difference,
and if it does, would they allow us, normal people, to
notice that it makes a difference?
Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
People also said that "being in a gravitational potential"
excludes "being in an inertial frame", unless the lab and
timespan in which the measurements are done are sufficiently
small.
Ask them again Moortel. They may have said "being in a gravitational
FIELD".
Valev, you are the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
Ask them anyway.
Valev, you are bigger than the biggest autistic imbecile on the planet.
You can be proud.
V E R Y P R O U D.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudolf Drabek" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 02:07:32 PM |
|
|
On 13 Apr., 08:47, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
As long there is no absolute FOR there is no solution.
Make evidence and you will be Einstein 2nd.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 02:41:14 AM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 10:47 pm, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip misunderstandings]
Tell me, spewing moron. How many hours a day, on average, do you spend
on this *****?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you PUCKERED UP SPHINCTER STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
13 Apr 2007 03:46:09 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you PUCKERED UP SPHINCTER STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
13 Apr 2007 04:28:20 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
13 Apr 2007 12:57:10 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 01:50:56 PM |
|
|
He won't listen to you. It's just a bulletin board, it's not the end
of the world.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 03:26:28 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1176490256.610449.212850@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
He won't listen to you. It's just a bulletin board, it's not the end
of the world.
Yeah, but an error in relativity would be like Stephen Hawking trying to =
screw
in a light bulb.=20
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
13 Apr 2007 02:33:29 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
13 Apr 2007 02:35:32 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPO |
13 Apr 2007 02:36:29 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 03:12:40 PM |
|
|
John - your approach doesn't work. Are you new to Usenet? Around here
people don't stop being obnoxious just because you ask them!
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
13 Apr 2007 03:35:32 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176495160.206385.13540@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
John - your approach doesn't work. Are you new to Usenet? Around here
people don't stop being obnoxious just because you ask them!
They get more obnoxious just because you ask them to stop.
So, let's have some fun and *beg* them to stop being obnoxious.
ALL TOGETHER NOW!
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO |
14 Apr 2007 12:45:59 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
14 Apr 2007 01:17:20 PM |
|
|
John - you are creating far worse disturbance than Pentcho's idiotic
rants. Just use a killfile - that's what they are for. Unlike
spammers, Pentcho uses a fixed address so you can easily filter him
out if you want to.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
14 Apr 2007 03:35:21 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1176574640.156065.176100@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
John - you are creating far worse disturbance than Pentcho's idiotic
rants. Just use a killfile - that's what they are for. Unlike
spammers, Pentcho uses a fixed address so you can easily filter him
out if you want to.
=20
--
Jan Bielawski
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/mka0047l.jpg
http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/ostrich.jpg
"You can't see me now, I have a killfile."
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jmo0399l.jpg
http://www.overthedarkness.com/DLdepot/light_for_dummies.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGI |
14 Apr 2007 04:20:03 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
16 Apr 2007 03:04:07 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "JanPB" |
|
| Title: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
16 Apr 2007 05:01:14 PM |
|
|
Yawn.
--
Jan Bielawski
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS WILL EXPLAIN THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT |
16 Apr 2007 05:38:18 PM |
|
|
"JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:1176760874.542348.127140@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yawn.
=20
--
Jan Bielawski
<snore>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
17 Apr 2007 12:36:09 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
17 Apr 2007 12:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
18 Apr 2007 02:43:34 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
18 Apr 2007 03:27:36 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
18 Apr 2007 03:38:19 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
18 Apr 2007 03:39:55 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING |
18 Apr 2007 08:23:05 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP REPLYING TO YOUR OWN POSTS AND STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI |
19 Apr 2007 02:28:24 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP REPLYING TO YOUR OWN POSTS AND STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC |
19 Apr 2007 04:59:31 AM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP REPLYING TO YOUR OWN POSTS AND STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING T |
19 Apr 2007 01:36:59 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT
INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the
gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light
measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is
it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and
even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted
at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: PENTHO NO-MATES VALEY you LITTTLE SNOT STOP REPLYING TO YOUR OWN POSTS AND STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING TO SCI LOGIC CROSSPOSTING T |
19 Apr 2007 01:41:15 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 7:47?am, "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Jeckyl wrote:
"John Kennaugh" <J...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
The second postulate
mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
"observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation!
Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-
Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist
in scenarios like this one:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-16-07&s...
"The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room
with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an
interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."
Now Roberts there is | |
