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

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?

w.

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

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.


w.

Helmut Wabnig wrote:
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.

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.

Pentcho Valev

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.

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.

So you're trying to convince zombies of your little sermon here, for
hundreds of posts of the same thing, and you wonder why they ignore
you. THEY'RE ZOMBIES, FOR GOD'S SAKE. They can't understand your
message. So you're in an infonet loop, forever posting the same
message, forever being not appreciated. Welcome to Hell, Pencho.

I'm sure you are not aware of Einsteins's Nightmares for if you did you
could answer the following question, that Einstein pondered untill his
last breath and that was

Why why why
Why if one loaf of bread plus 1 loaf = 2 loafs of bread then why if you
take one away it = no loafs of bread??? 1-1= Zero? Do you not still
have 1 loaf of bread??? Par-due Primiary Principal one of us
Morfeeis..................

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

Pentcho Valev the Ultimate Cretin wrote:
snipped

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

"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

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

That is what experimental evidence tells us.
Androcles.