"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
| On 30 Jun 2006 23:21:16 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
| wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
| Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell
us?
|
| Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
| confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.
|
| Hmm. Scratching my head.
| Probably has been posted more than once in the past,
| but could you be more specific and add some links or so.
|
| Yes has been posted more than once in the past. I thought repetitions
| could convice zombies in the end but I was wrong. Nothing can be done.
|
| Ok this tells us, that all experimental evidence is against you.
| :-)

No, it tells us you are a ****headed moron with no knowledge of physics
and are now trolling. There is no point in scratching your head, it is
empty.

Androcles.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On 30 Jun 2006 22:41:55 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
wrote:

At some stage Einstein's business was quite good: the combination of
the principle of variability of the speed of light (the c+v principle)
and the equivalence principle was producing excellent predictions (e.g.
the frequency shift factor confirmed in numerous experiments). However
Einstein did not know how to deal with the idiotic principle of
constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) whose miraculous
corollaries (time dilation, length contraction etc.) had converted
Albert the Juggler into Divine Albert but which nevertheless had become
a terrible menace. In his panic Einstein decided to camouflage the
idiotic principle by surrounding it with even greater idiocies. So in
Chapter 7 in his "Relativity" Einstein knows no limits and claims that
the principle of constancy of the speed of light is a corollary of the
principle of relativity:

"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo must, ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as
when the rails are the body of reference."

Pentcho Valev

Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell us?

Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.

Pentcho Valev

I think you must have been dropped on your head too many times when you
were a child.

On 1 Jul 2006 06:38:53 -0700, "dda1" Gave
us:


Pentcho Valev the Ultimate Cretin wrote:
snipped

So you read the answers to your posts, ****?

Your troll as could be a little more retarded, but not in this life.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:16:19 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
| On 30 Jun 2006 23:08:44 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
| wrote:
|
|
|
| Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell us?
|
| Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
| confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.
|
| Hmm. Scratching my head.
| Probably has been posted more than once in the past,
| but could you be more specific and add some links or so.

Here's a link for you:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm


Your very first sentence from that link is wrong:
In this animation the first few frames are run slowly
to show how the light strikes the exact centre of the mirrors
and then continues

at a faster pace

to trace the entire path
from centre right back to centre right......

You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
What would you think lightspeed will be after 10000 reflections
on fastly moving mirrors in your world?
Lightspeed does not change, SAUCERER.

And another, proving light curves with Sagnac's experiment:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
For "ball" substitute "light".
You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
There is a kind of "limit" up to which classical mechanics is valid
and beyond that "limit" it is invalid. Mechanical analogies fail.
One cannot substitute "ball" for "light" under all circumstances.
Actually above example has nothing to do with the OP.

That is what experimental evidence tells us.
Androcles.

Experimental evidence is against you, Androcles,
and likewise it is against your friend
and shining example Pentcho Valev.
Nice try, SAUCERER, but a near miss is still a 100% miss.

w.
--
Every time when I see a drunk man staggering out of the pub,
I want to call out:
"Return, return, my friend, you are on the wrong way"

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:16:19 GMT, "Sorcerer"
wrote:


"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
| On 30 Jun 2006 23:08:44 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
| wrote:
|
|
|
| Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell us?
|
| Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
| confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.
|
| Hmm. Scratching my head.
| Probably has been posted more than once in the past,
| but could you be more specific and add some links or so.

Here's a link for you:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm


Your very first sentence from that link is wrong:
In this animation the first few frames are run slowly
to show how the light strikes the exact centre of the mirrors
and then continues

at a faster pace

to trace the entire path
from centre right back to centre right......

You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
What would you think lightspeed will be after 10000 reflections
on fastly moving mirrors in your world?
Lightspeed does not change, SAUCERER.

And another, proving light curves with Sagnac's experiment:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov
For "ball" substitute "light".
You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
There is a kind of "limit" up to which classical mechanics is valid
and beyond that "limit" it is invalid. Mechanical analogies fail.
One cannot substitute "ball" for "light" under all circumstances.
Actually above example has nothing to do with the OP.
Actually the speed of the ball does not change.
Actually your own examples prove evidence against you,
SAUcerer.

That is what experimental evidence tells us.
Androcles.

Experimental evidence is against you, Androcles,
and likewise it is against your friend
and shining example Pentcho Valev.
Nice try, SAUCERER, but a near miss is still a 100% miss.

w.
--
Every time when I see a drunk man staggering out of the pub,
I want to call out:
"Return, return, my friend, you are on the wrong way"

"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...
| On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:16:19 GMT, "Sorcerer"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
| message ...
| | On 30 Jun 2006 23:08:44 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| |
| | Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell
us?
| |
| | Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
| | confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.
| |
| | Hmm. Scratching my head.
| | Probably has been posted more than once in the past,
| | but could you be more specific and add some links or so.
|
| Here's a link for you:
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm
|
|
| Your very first sentence from that link is wrong:
| In this animation the first few frames are run slowly
| to show how the light strikes the exact centre of the mirrors
| and then continues
|
| at a faster pace
|
| to trace the entire path
| from centre right back to centre right......
|
| You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
| What would you think lightspeed will be after 10000 reflections
| on fastly moving mirrors in your world?
| Lightspeed does not change, SAUCERER.

It doesn't change in the rotating frame, true.
However, it curves in the rotating frame, just like this ball, ****!
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov


|
| And another, proving light curves with Sagnac's experiment:
| | For "ball" substitute "light".
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...s/coriolis.mov

| You are wrong. Actually not even wrong.
| There is a kind of "limit" up to which classical mechanics is valid
| and beyond that "limit" it is invalid. Mechanical analogies fail.
| One cannot substitute "ball" for "light" under all circumstances.
| Actually above example has nothing to do with the OP.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter10.html
Light curves. You are ****ed, ****.
This bottle goes from Mickey's left hand to his right and back again.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ickeyLarge.gif
You are ****ed, ****.




|
| That is what experimental evidence tells us.
| Androcles.
|
| Experimental evidence is against you, Androcles,
| and likewise it is against your friend
| and shining example Pentcho Valev.
| Nice try, SAUCERER, but a near miss is still a 100% miss.

And you missed 100%, ****!
Androcles

"Helmut Wabnig" *_.-_- wrote in
message ...

Quit posting twice. **** off.
Androcles

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
On 30 Jun 2006 23:21:16 -0700, "Pentcho Valev"
wrote:





Maybe you don't like it, but what does experimental evidence tell us?

Experiments confirming the frequency shift factor simultaneously
confirm the c+v principle and refute the c principle. I like it.

Hmm. Scratching my head.
Probably has been posted more than once in the past,
but could you be more specific and add some links or so.

Yes has been posted more than once in the past. I thought repetitions
could convice zombies in the end but I was wrong. Nothing can be done.

Ok this tells us, that all experimental evidence is against you.
:-)
w.

xxein: I rather think that we are biased, unknowing and stupid when we
compile (so-called) emperical evidence.