A Question to Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?newsfeed=true
"Ask Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw your science questions. Professors
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw will be answering your science questions in
the Observer New Review in October"

I was not able to register and post my question as a comment so I am
asking it he

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, why do you teach lies? Both Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
the fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE
OBSERVER:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

The fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER
is so obvious that scientists often ignore special relativity and
refer to the variation explicitly:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?newsfeed=true
"Ask Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw your science questions. Professors
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw will be answering your science questions in
the Observer New Review in October"

[...]

Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, why do you teach lies? Both Maxwell's
electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
the fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE
OBSERVER:

I can't help with your question, but don't expect to get a helpful
answer from people you call liars.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YiVsDWQ5zg&NR=1
Brian Cox: "If I was to fly past you incredibly fast, I would see your
time tick much slower than mine. This idea lies at the heart of
Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) According to Einstein, you
should see the time tick slower at my feet than at the top of my
head."

Brian Cox, would you teach these "élucubrations" if you knew that (the
audience knows that) both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light
VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER?

Pentcho Valev

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...?newsfeed=true
| "Ask Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw your science questions. Professors
| Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw will be answering your science questions in
| the Observer New Review in October"
|
| [...]
|
| Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, why do you teach lies? Both Maxwell's
| electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
| the fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE
| OBSERVER:
|
| I can't help with your question, but don't expect to get a helpful
| answer from people you call liars.
|
| --
| When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
| this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
| Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
|

The dunces Cox and Forshaw (and Einstein) are in confederacy against
Newton.
I would not expect a helpful answer from them and you've given yours.
The answer to MMX is contained in the first line of Michelson's paper:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf

Pentcho Valev wrote:


Brian Cox, would you teach these "élucubrations" if you knew that (the
audience knows that) both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light
VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER?

A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a fact?

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
|
| Brian Cox, would you teach these "élucubrations" if you knew that (the
| audience knows that) both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the
| Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light
| VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER?
|
| A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a fact?
|
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -- Einstein.

Androcles wrote:

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
|
| Brian Cox, would you teach these "élucubrations" if you knew that (the
| audience knows that) both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the
| Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light
| VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER?
|
| A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a fact?

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -- Einstein.

"Pentcho Valev is no Einstein." -- Williams.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| "Frederick Williams" wrote in message
| ...
| | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| |
| |
| | Brian Cox, would you teach these "élucubrations" if you knew that
(the
| | audience knows that) both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the
| | Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of
light
| | VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER?
| |
| | A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a
fact?
|
| "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -- Einstein.
|
| "Pentcho Valev is no Einstein." -- Williams.
|
| --
| When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
| this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
| Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
|

I'm sure Pentcho would say "Thank goodness for that!"
"Irrelevant dunce Williams is no Isaac Newton and no Jonathan Swift." --
Androcles.

A general point: what does it mean to babble inanities in pathetic attempt
to
shoot the messenger and avoid any discussion in re the physical data of MMX,
dunce Williams?

How come the voice of the airline hostess talking to a passenger isn't
Doppler-
shifted when she's hurtling through the air at 500 mph, dunce Williams who
is
an Einstein in confederacy against Newton?
What's the answer according to your theory? The plane contracts along the
fuselage but the wings remain the same length, perhaps...or maybe its a
complete mystery to you.

Androcles wrote:

| "Frederick Williams" wrote in message

| | A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a
fact?

What's the answer according to your theory?

I have none. My question (which I have preserved above) was sincerely
asked.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| | "Frederick Williams" wrote in
message
|
| | | A general point: what does it mean to say that a theory confirms a
| fact?
|
| What's the answer according to your theory?
|
| I have none.

Can you snip to ignore the question as well, you ****ing ignorant ****headed
imbecile?
So can I. You are snipped.
*plonk*