FIELD, PARTICLES, SPEED OF LIGHT

Einsteinians, do you see any relation between the following three
texts:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Albert Einstein 1920: "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the
special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz
theory of the electromagnetic field."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 5, 12:30*am, doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinians, do you see any relation between the following three
texts:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Albert Einstein 1920: "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the
special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz
theory of the electromagnetic field."

Yes this is ok

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

So?

Singing, what else (and going into convulsions):

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd:

Here the author assumes what he want to show:

A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it.

Above assumes classical mechanics.

* And if we take light to consist of particles

So he starts with a baseless assumption.

and assume

that these particles obey Newton's laws,

and then follows it by another baseless assumption..
they will conform to Newtonian relativity

and gets a wrong answer.

* and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations.

No, it is the classical calculation that gives you the wrong *answer.
He shares the same failure as Noeinstein in being unable to actually
calculate the classical result.

Silly Banesh Hoffmann. Silly John Norton:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Clever "doug". Bravo, Clever "doug"!

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteinians, do you see any relation between the following three
texts:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Albert Einstein 1920: "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the
special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz
theory of the electromagnetic field."

Yes this is ok

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

So?

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd:

Here the author assumes what he want to show:

A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it.
Above assumes classical mechanics.

And if we take light to consist of particles

So he starts with a baseless assumption.

and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws,

and then follows it by another baseless assumption..
they will conform to
Newtonian relativity
and gets a wrong answer.

and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations.

No, it is the classical calculation that gives you the wrong answer.
He shares the same failure as Noeinstein in being unable to actually
calculate the classical result.

Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas,
Imagine rejecting an idea just because it gives the wrong answer. What
is this going to do to science?

and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Maybe because it was the basis of his calculations? People sometimes
do tell you the assumptions before presenting conclusions.

Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

and sometimes they also give conclusions based on the assumptions and
calculations.

I was waiting for the punch line with some actual evidence. I am still
waiting.




Pentcho Valev

Field concept is where dark matter is according to my theories.
Relativity
has very specific reasons why it can't mix with field concepts, though
super-mathematicians tried and came up with many dimensions and
so on.

It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.


Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 5, 12:30 am, doug wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteinians, do you see any relation between the following three
texts:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Albert Einstein 1920: "The space-time theory and the kinematics of the
special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz
theory of the electromagnetic field."

Yes this is ok


http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

So?


Singing, what else (and going into convulsions):

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3


http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd:

Here the author assumes what he want to show:


A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it.

Above assumes classical mechanics.

And if we take light to consist of particles

So he starts with a baseless assumption.

and assume


that these particles obey Newton's laws,

and then follows it by another baseless assumption..
they will conform to Newtonian relativity

and gets a wrong answer.


and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations.

No, it is the classical calculation that gives you the wrong answer.
He shares the same failure as Noeinstein in being unable to actually
calculate the classical result.


Silly Banesh Hoffmann. Silly John Norton:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Clever "doug". Bravo, Clever "doug"!

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 5, 4:35*am, doug wrote:
It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.

I should not ignore the truth anymore. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton
may say that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE" but
they are obviously two silly Einsteinians and nobody gives a ****
about what they say. All intellects in Einstein criminal cult claim
the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and therefore THAT should be the truth. Dieu est
toujours pour les plus gros bataillons:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
Australian intellects: "But is it true? Is the speed of light really
independent of the motion of the observer? (...) The simplest
interpretation of the results [of the Michelson-Morley experiment] is
that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab,
whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the
Earth through the aether or at right angles to it."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Cambidge intellect Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace
himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a
gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would
be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the
same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size,
would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised
it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge
man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html
Cambridge intellect Stephen Hawking again: "So if you were traveling
in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed
would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite
direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet
a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in
speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate
of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward
Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was
as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no
matter how you were moving."

http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp
"While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 5, 4:35 am, doug wrote:
It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.

I should not ignore the truth anymore. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton
may say that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE" but
they are obviously two silly Einsteinians and nobody gives a ****
about what they say. All intellects in Einstein criminal cult claim
the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and therefore THAT should be the truth. Dieu est
toujours pour les plus gros bataillons:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
Australian intellects: "But is it true? Is the speed of light really
independent of the motion of the observer? (...) The simplest
interpretation of the results [of the Michelson-Morley experiment] is
that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab,
whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the
Earth through the aether or at right angles to it."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Cambidge intellect Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace
himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a
gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would
be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the
same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size,
would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised
it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge
man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."


http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html
Cambridge intellect Stephen Hawking again: "So if you were traveling
in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed
would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite
direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet
a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in
speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate
of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward
Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was
as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no
matter how you were moving."

So yet another moron can not tell the experiment only proves
lightspeed is constant to all "at rest" frames and he could not even tell
there was no relative motion occuring wrt the detectors and wrt the source.
Hawking is a moron.



http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp
"While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity."

So the Morons are all that freakin stupid.
An experiment that did not even have relative motion between the
source and observer was completely misunderstood by all these morons.
Un-freakin-believable, Isn't it?
LOL

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

I suspect you have a program which generates random replies
to any criticism of your bizarre views. Papers from
cranks do not count for anything. Random papers about other
things do not count. You can ignore the truth and rant
but it does not change the fact that you are wrong.

Explain the GPS for instance with your theory.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 5, 4:35 am, doug wrote:

It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.


I should not ignore the truth anymore. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton
may say that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE" but
they are obviously two silly Einsteinians and nobody gives a ****
about what they say. All intellects in Einstein criminal cult claim
the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and therefore THAT should be the truth. Dieu est
toujours pour les plus gros bataillons:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
Australian intellects: "But is it true? Is the speed of light really
independent of the motion of the observer? (...) The simplest
interpretation of the results [of the Michelson-Morley experiment] is
that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab,
whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the
Earth through the aether or at right angles to it."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Cambidge intellect Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace
himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a
gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would
be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the
same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size,
would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised
it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge
man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html
Cambridge intellect Stephen Hawking again: "So if you were traveling
in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed
would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite
direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet
a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in
speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate
of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward
Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was
as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no
matter how you were moving."

http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp
"While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 5, 4:41*pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 5, 4:35 am, doug wrote:
It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.

I should not ignore the truth anymore. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton
may say that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE" but
they are obviously two silly Einsteinians and nobody gives a ****
about what they say. All intellects in Einstein criminal cult claim
the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and therefore THAT should be the truth. Dieu est
toujours pour les plus gros bataillons:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...is_it_true.htm
Australian intellects: "But is it true? Is the speed of light really
independent of the motion of the observer? (...) The simplest
interpretation of the results [of the Michelson-Morley experiment] is
that light travelled at the same speed with respect to the lab,
whether or not the arm of the spectrometer were travelling with the
Earth through the aether or at right angles to it."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Cambidge intellect Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace
himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a
gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would
be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the
same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size,
would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised
it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge
man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...of_rela6a.html

Cambridge intellect Stephen Hawking again: "So if you were traveling
in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed
would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite
direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet
a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in
speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate
of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward
Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was
as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no
matter how you were moving."

So yet another moron can not tell the experiment only proves
lightspeed is constant to all "at rest" frames and he could not even tell
there was no relative motion occuring wrt the detectors and wrt the source.
Hawking is a moron.

http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp

"While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity."

So the Morons are all that freakin stupid.
An experiment that did not even have relative motion between the
source and observer was completely misunderstood by all these morons.
Un-freakin-believable, Isn't it?

Who knows. Sometimes it seems to me there is a better explanation.
Have a look at this:

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC
Faster Than the Speed of Light
The Story of a Scientific Speculation
Joao Magueijo
"VERY SILLY
I AM BY PROFESSIONAL a theoretical physicist. By every definition I am
a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge,
followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at St. John's
College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly held this
fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a lecturer
(the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States) at
Imperial College.....In 1887, in one of the most important scientific
experiments ever undertaken, the American scientists Albert Michelson
and Edward Morley showed that the apparent speed of light was not
affected by the motion of the Earth. This experiment was very puzzling
for everyone at the time. It contradicted the commonsense notion that
speeds always add up. A missile fired from a plane moves faster than
one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed!.....The rest of my research work was going
well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find that I
had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is the
most desirable junior research position available in Britain, perhaps
anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten years as
well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever you want.
At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge, and that
it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved big cities,
so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top university for
theoretical physics."

The parts of this text would be much more consistent if the title of
the chapter is not "VERY SILLY" but, rather, "VERY CRIMINAL".

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 8, 2:08*am, doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 5, 4:41 pm, "Spaceman"
wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 5, 4:35 am, doug wrote:

It is always funny to read your posts. You stick your fingers
in your ears and sing so that you can continue to ignore the
truth. Think what useful things you could do with your time
rather than showing yourself to be a lazy fool.

I should not ignore the truth anymore. Banesh Hoffmann and John Norton
may say that "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE" but
they are obviously two silly Einsteinians and nobody gives a ****
about what they say.

You need to learn to think. They are wrong and make no attempt to
support the assertions. You cannot expect physics to come from
philosophers, particularly those who do not know any physics.
You rant a lot but have shown nothing substantial.

You still cannot explain the relativistic corrections in GPS. *All
the bizarre misinterpretations of old papers that you bring up
cannot explain GPS. You will, of course, ignore this since it is
inconventient for you to be presented with facts.

I ignore the GPS story because I have already discussed it with
another zombie called "Helmut Wabnig" and the discussion was not very
useful:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...1771201c66270?

And you seem to be even sillier than zombie Wabnig so I don't see why
I should discuss the story again with you.

Pentcho Valev