Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.

Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein applies his method of
maximum absurdity and informs the reader that the velocity of light is
variable, not constant:

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."

"The velocity of propagation of light varies with position" means that
the derivative dV/dX, where V is velocity and X is distance, is NOT
zero. In a sane science this derivative would undergo comprehensive
analysis but in the relativity cult the situation is different. Simply
because Einstein did not tell his zombies what to do. So the problem is
under taboo. Some of the reasons are described he
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


Any time frequency shift is duscussed, relativists face a serious
problem: in accordance with frequency=speed/wavelength, either the
shift is due to the fact that the speed of light is variable or, if the
speed of light is constant, the frequency shift goes together with a
complementary change in the wavelength. The phrase "variable speed of
light" acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it,
relativists get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. Then
they are ready to discuss the latter possibility but - horror again -
the supposed change in the wavelength is just an idiocy. There is no
physical factor that can cause it. Moreover, if the front end of an
accelerating rocket sends light towards the back end, the wavelength
must DECREASE with distance. However if the back end sends light
towards the front end, the wavelength must INCREASE with distance. Even
zombies feel that something is amiss with this behaviour of the
wavelength. So, generally, the problem is under taboo. Only
occasionally the initiated restore serenity in the relativity cult by
making some short meaningless comment.

Pentcho Valev

Here's a short meaningless comment: **** off and die!

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Any time frequency shift is duscussed, relativists face a serious
problem: in accordance with frequency=speed/wavelength, either the
shift is due to the fact that the speed of light is variable or, if the
speed of light is constant, the frequency shift goes together with a
complementary change in the wavelength.

Since the speed of light is constant, that about sums it up!

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.

Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein applies his method of
maximum absurdity and informs the reader that the velocity of light is
variable, not constant:

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."

"The velocity of propagation of light varies with position" means that
the derivative dV/dX, where V is velocity and X is distance, is NOT
zero. In a sane science this derivative would undergo comprehensive
analysis but in the relativity cult the situation is different. Simply
because Einstein did not tell his zombies what to do. So the problem is
under taboo. Some of the reasons are described he
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


Any time frequency shift is duscussed, relativists face a serious
problem: in accordance with frequency=speed/wavelength, either the
shift is due to the fact that the speed of light is variable or, if the
speed of light is constant, the frequency shift goes together with a
complementary change in the wavelength.

Although I agree with the sentiment of the other poster for the benefit of
those who may be reading this note that in both GR and SR the speed of light
is the same in any inertial frame. As usual Pentcho Valev simply
demonstrates he has no clue. Of course that says nothing about its speed in
non inertial frames but guess which frame are usually used in analyzing such
effects?. No prizes for guessing it is usually not non inertial ones.

Bill

The phrase "variable speed of
light" acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it,
relativists get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. Then
they are ready to discuss the latter possibility but - horror again -
the supposed change in the wavelength is just an idiocy. There is no
physical factor that can cause it. Moreover, if the front end of an
accelerating rocket sends light towards the back end, the wavelength
must DECREASE with distance. However if the back end sends light
towards the front end, the wavelength must INCREASE with distance. Even
zombies feel that something is amiss with this behaviour of the
wavelength. So, generally, the problem is under taboo. Only
occasionally the initiated restore serenity in the relativity cult by
making some short meaningless comment.

Pentcho Valev

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.

Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein applies his method of
maximum absurdity and informs the reader that the velocity of light is
variable, not constant:

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."

"The velocity of propagation of light varies with position" means that
the derivative dV/dX, where V is velocity and X is distance, is NOT
zero. In a sane science this derivative would undergo comprehensive
analysis but in the relativity cult the situation is different. Simply
because Einstein did not tell his zombies what to do. So the problem is
under taboo. Some of the reasons are described he
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


Any time frequency shift is duscussed, relativists face a serious
problem: in accordance with frequency=speed/wavelength, either the
shift is due to the fact that the speed of light is variable or, if the
speed of light is constant, the frequency shift goes together with a
complementary change in the wavelength.

Although I agree with the sentiment of the other poster for the benefit of
those who may be reading this note that in both GR and SR the speed of light
is the same in any inertial frame. As usual Pentcho Valev simply
demonstrates he has no clue. Of course that says nothing about its speed in
non inertial frames but guess which frame are usually used in analyzing such
effects?. No prizes for guessing it is usually not non inertial ones.

Bill

This imbecile seems to jump from confusing simple velocity
with speed in one post, to confusing inertial frames with
non-inertial ones in the next post without even having a look
at the comments.
Apparently Pentcho Valev has decided to turn having no clue
and being proud of it into an art form.

Dirk Vdm

Light VELOCiTY c is a mathematical constant, like pi.!!
ReCALL the BENT PHOTON mass PROOF of RELATiViTY THEORY.
Stellar AMBiENT density gradients actually REFRACT c.!!
But the MONEY was on SPACEtime curvature, NOT ambience.

brian a m stuckless


Sam Wormley wrote:
Since the speed of light is constant, that about sums it up!

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
oups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
SNIP [other subjects]

Any time frequency shift is duscussed, relativists face a serious
problem: in accordance with frequency=speed/wavelength, either the
shift is due to the fact that the speed of light is variable or,

You have it upside down: with stationary receivers in inertial frames (which
is a standard setting), received frequencies cannot be a function of
transmission time so that speed of light doesn't matter (old stuff, see
Einstein 1911).
For the rest, classical wave mechanics is irrelevant (or is that taboo
too?).

Harald

if the
speed of light is constant, the frequency shift goes together with a
complementary change in the wavelength. The phrase "variable speed of
light" acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it,
relativists get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. Then
they are ready to discuss the latter possibility but - horror again -
the supposed change in the wavelength is just an idiocy. There is no
physical factor that can cause it. Moreover, if the front end of an
accelerating rocket sends light towards the back end, the wavelength
must DECREASE with distance. However if the back end sends light
towards the front end, the wavelength must INCREASE with distance. Even
zombies feel that something is amiss with this behaviour of the
wavelength. So, generally, the problem is under taboo. Only
occasionally the initiated restore serenity in the relativity cult by
making some short meaningless comment.

Pentcho Valev

brian a m stuckless wrote:
Light VELOCiTY c is a mathematical constant, like pi.!!

Think again!! SR ****s phi in the arse, because it is undone by the
fact that a rotating hula hoop diminishes in circumference, when
measured on that path, but WHY did the diameter alter??????????????

ReCALL the BENT PHOTON mass PROOF of RELATiViTY THEORY.
Stellar AMBiENT density gradients actually REFRACT c.!!
But the MONEY was on SPACEtime curvature, NOT ambience.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

Jim G
c=c'+v

wrote:
brian a m stuckless wrote:
Light VELOCiTY c is a mathematical constant, like pi.!!

Think again!! SR ****s phi in the arse, because it is undone by the
fact that a rotating hula hoop diminishes in circumference, when
measured on that path, but WHY did the diameter alter??????????????

typo error: put pi for phi

Jim G

ReCALL the BENT PHOTON mass PROOF of RELATiViTY THEORY.
Stellar AMBiENT density gradients actually REFRACT c.!!
But the MONEY was on SPACEtime curvature, NOT ambience.

Fools and their money are easily parted.

Jim G
c=c'+v