# (c & v) and Einstein's Relativity

AAF
 Posts 0
AAF
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

Anonymous
 Posts 0
Anonymous
AAF:
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

You are a gross ignorant, cases 2,3,4 have been covered experimentally and have confirmed relativity. What planet are you living on? The Ignorants Planet?

Experiments Using Cosmological Sources
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), pg 267. DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297¨C1298 (1913). DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395¨C396 (1913). DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913) <a href="http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm</span>. DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913) <span class="link">http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm</span>. DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913) <span class="link">http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm</a>. Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), pg 1.
Observations of binary stars. k < 10?6. These are all subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction.<br>
K. Brecher, ¡°Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?¡±, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051¨C1054, 1236(E) (1977).
Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2¡Á10?9. Optical Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays used have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance to the sources.<br>
Heckmann, Ann. d. Astrophys. 23 (1960), pg 410.
Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars. This experiment is subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction.

Observations of Supernovae
A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5¡Á10?9. These observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of the X-ray wavelengths used. <br>
Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ¦Ð0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the ¦Ð0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for ¦Ð+ and ¦Ð?.

Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271.
Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e? annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~0.5) to be c within 10%.

This experiment was criticized in Lo Savio, Phys. Lett. A, 1988, Vol 133, pg 176. It is certainly true that at the instant of annihilation the e+ need not be traveling in the same direction it had initially, or have the same speed (most annihilations occur at very low energy as the positrons stop). This experiment is inconclusive at best.

Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964).
This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02.<br>
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071.
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ¦Ð0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%.<br>
Beckmann and Mandics, ¡°Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum¡±, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965).
A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10?6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem.

Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/.
A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5¡Á10?7. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum.

AAF
 Posts 0
AAF
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

Cincirob: <font>OK, so you want to get picky about the semantics. Well I can play that game. My comment was that any modern technical device you ever had in your hands originated as a mathematical depiction. I didn't say the idea for the device started out as mathematical depiction, I said the device did. So let's see if you can name a modern technical device that wasn't mathematically analyzed or depicted to bring it to manufacture. And I can name a patented technical device that started out as a mathematical concept, the laser. And interestingly the concept can be traced all the way back to our old friend Einstein who discovered the phenomenon of stimulated emission. </font>

AAF: Mathematics indicates very clearly that your Albert is 25% right and 75% wrong!
Let me repeat it you one more time:
[A] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[C] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[D] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Anonymous
 Posts 0
Anonymous
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

AAF: Einsten .....

I see, you are not only ignorant, you are an autistic idiot. Repeating the same idiocies after being proven wrong is a sure sign of it.

AAF
 Posts 0
AAF
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment). By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v). Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:
[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above). Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

Anonymous: <font>You are a gross ignorant, cases 2,3,4 have been covered experimentally and have confirmed relativity. What planet are you living on? The Ignorants Planet? Experiments Using Cosmological Sources Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), pg 267. DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297¨C1298 (1913). DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395¨C396 (1913). DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913) http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm. DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913) http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desitter.htm. Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), pg 1. Observations of binary stars. k < 10?6. These are all subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction. <br>K. Brecher, ¡°Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?¡±, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1051¨C1054, 1236(E) (1977). Uses observations of binary pulsars to put a limit on the source-velocity dependence of the speed of light. k < 2¡Á10?9. Optical Extinction is not a problem here, because the high-energy X-rays used have an extinction length considerably longer than the distance to the sources. <br>Heckmann, Ann. d. Astrophys. 23 (1960), pg 410. Differential aberration, galaxies versus stars. This experiment is subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction. Observations of Supernovae A supernova explosion sends debris out in all directions with speeds of 10,000 km/s or more (known from Doppler broadening of spectral lines). If the speed of light depended on the source velocity, its arrival at Earth would be spread out in time due to the spread of source velocities. Such a time spread is not observed, and observations of distant supernovae give k < 5¡Á10?9. These observations could be subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction, but some observations are for supernovas considerably closer than the extinction length of the X-ray wavelengths used. <br>Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ¦Ð0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the ¦Ð0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for ¦Ð+ and ¦Ð?. Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271. Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e? annihilation (with center-of-mass v/c ~0.5) to be c within 10%. This experiment was criticized in Lo Savio, Phys. Lett. A, 1988, Vol 133, pg 176. It is certainly true that at the instant of annihilation the e+ need not be traveling in the same direction it had initially, or have the same speed (most annihilations occur at very low energy as the positrons stop). This experiment is inconclusive at best. Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). This repeat of Kantor's experiment in vacuum shows no significant variation in the speed of light affected by moving glass plates. Optical Extinction is not a problem. k < 0.02. <br> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast ¦Ð0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. <br> Beckmann and Mandics, ¡°Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum¡±, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965). A direct experiment with coherent light reflected from a moving mirror was performed in vacuum better than 10?6 torr. Its result is consistent with the constant velocity of light. This experiment is notable because Beckmann was a perennial critic of SR. Optical Extinction is not a problem. Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser, http://vuv-fel.desy.de/. A free-electron laser generates highly collimated X-rays parallel to the relativistic electron beam that is their source. If the region that generates the X-rays is L meters long, and the speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv (here v is essentially c), then at the downstream end of that region the minimum pulse width is k(L/c)/(1+k), because light emitted at the beginning arrives before light emitted at the downstream end. For FLASH, L=30 meters, v=0.9999997 c (700 MeV), and the observed X-ray pulse width is as short as 25 fs. This puts an upper limit on k of 2.5¡Á10?7. Optical extinction is not present, as the entire process occurs in very high vacuum.</font>

AAF: Congratulation, Ignoramus; this is the longest and the most useless'rubbish' you ever posted anywhere! Unluckily for you and for Cincirob and for Max as well, the case of (moving observer & source of light at rest) is not only proven to be true by many experiments, but it is also embedded right into the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity. Do you see that factor called (?) in those equations? Well, that factor is composed of [(c + v)(c v)]; can you see it? Cincirob can see it! As for the case of (moving source & observer at rest) , it is proven to be true by Kantor's earthshaking experiment. Have you heard of it? Well, Cincirob has heard of it:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=75926

Joined: 18 Jun 2005, 13:38
AAF: Congratulation, Ignoramus; this is the longest and the most useless'rubbish' you ever posted anywhere! Unluckily for you and for Cincirob and for Max as well, the case of (moving observer & source of light at rest) is not only proven to be true by many experiments, but it is also embedded right into the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity. Do you see that factor called (?) in those equations? Well, that factor is composed of [(c + v)(c v)]; can you see it? Cincirob can see it! As for the case of (moving source & observer at rest) , it is proven to be true by Kantor's earthshaking experiment. Have you heard of it? Well, Cincirob has heard of it:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=75926

What sort of autistic imbecile are you? "Moving observer and source at rest" is the same as "Moving source and observer at rest". This is basic realtivity, valid not only in SR but also in Galilean relativity, imbecile.

Joined: 18 Jun 2005, 13:38
# Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978.

1. Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44.
2. Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147.
3. Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252.
4. Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965).
The consensus (1-4) is that Kantor's non-null result was due to his rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null result consistent with SR.

AAF
 Posts 0
AAF
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

AAF: Congratulation, Ignoramus; this is the longest and the most useless'rubbish' you ever posted anywhere! Unluckily for you and for Cincirob and for Max as well, the case of (moving observer & source of light at rest) is not only proven to be true by many experiments, but it is also embedded right into the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity. Do you see that factor called (gamma) in those equations? Well, that factor is composed of [(c - v)(c + v)]; can you see it? Cincirob can see it! As for the case of (moving source & observer at rest) , it is proven to be true by Kantor's earthshaking experiment. Have you heard of it? Well, Cincirob has heard of it:
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=75926

Anonymous: <font>What sort of autistic imbecile are you? "Moving observer and source at rest" is the same as "Moving source and observer at rest". This is basic relativity, valid not only in SR but also in Galilean relativity, imbecile. </font>

AAF: Look (TJ, JT, Iso, As, Anon, and so on); you are not as stupid as I thought, and at times you do show some signs of intelligence! Indeed, Einstein's Special Relativity, in principle, does not recognize the difference between relative velocities due to the motion of the observer and relative velocities due to the motion of the light source. And it just calls them 'relative velocities'. however, in his 1905 paper, Einstein mentions this difference and uses it to define his first postulate. Also, he uses this difference in deriving his equation for light aberration. Light aberration, as you may know, involves only the motion of the observer and contradicts sharply the basic principles of Relativity. But, in general and as a whole, the theory of Relativity does not differentiate between the motion of the observer and the motion of the source. As a result, this false theory of physics bites the dust and throws itself in the dustbin as a useless rubbish, as soon as one makes the distinction between these two types of motion. And that is what this post is all about.

Cincirob: <font>Well by your definition you can color me asinine. As for why Einstein "invented it", the physics world was unable to explain a number of experiments with the theories available. But that's all history. What I haven't found in history is a paradox in relativity. Perhaps you could enlighten me. </font>

AAF: There is no need for coloring you with it; it's your natural color! And it is not all history. Einstein's Relativity is full of paradoxes and contradictions right now and this moments and you can doing nothing about it.

Anonymous: <font># Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978. 1. Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44. 2. Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147. 3. Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252. 4. Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965). The consensus (1-4) is that Kantor's non-null result was due to his rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null result consistent with SR. </font>

AAF: Again, Anon, you are not as dumb as you look and sound! But you should have provided the link to the above quote; you don't want to be labeled as a 'plagiarist'; do you? Anyway, your above citation recognizes the difference between speeds due to the source and speeds due to the observer; otherwise, Babcock and his friends could never claim to debunk Wallace Kantor's experimental findings. But their supposition of air dragging cannot explain away the positive results of Kantor's experiment. That is because the Fizeau equations for this dragging are well known, and this sort of dragging works in a very specific way; and more importantly Wallace Kantor has taken care of it right at the start of his experiment. I wish I can provide you with the illustration of this experiment; but, for the time being, the the JavaScript and HTML tags are disabled temporarily on this Network; and I can't do it.

Anonymous
 Posts 0
Anonymous
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

AAF: Light aberration, as you may know, involves only the motion of the observer and contradicts sharply the basic principles of Relativity.

You are a much bigger imbecile that originally projected by your posts.

AAF
 Posts 0
AAF
<font><font size="6">(c & v) and Einstein's Relativity</font></font>

Cincirob: <font>OK AAF, tell us what you do believeif you can. Yes, now why dont you try to prove it. OK, you cant tell me what you believeonly what you dont believe. In other words, you have nothing to offer. Again, you have no answer for my question. </font>

AAF: Let's see! You're familiar with the simple experiment of Michelson & Morley. Do you really think they could have used starlight in their experiment? They couldn't have used it, because their experimental beam must be intense and monochromatic to give observed results. As I pointed out many times, experiments performed on the basis of the Ether theory, including those of Michelson & Morley & Arago & Airy, were designed for testing and searching only for (c+v & c-v) of moving observers. Whenever there was a relative speed between (source & observer), the results of those experiments were positive & successful (e.g. the Fizeau experiment & the Michelson-Gale experiment).

By contrast, whenever the given speed was the common speed of (source of light & measuring observer), the experimental results were null & unsuccessful (e.g. the Arago experiment & the Michelson-Morley experiment). The reason, behind the spectacular failure of the latter experiments, is that the Ether theory does not recognize the (c+v & c-v) of sources of light. And hence, experiments based on the Ether theory, inevitably fail, whenever (c+v & c-v) of the light source are present & (v) is the common speed of both the source of light & the measuring observer. And that is because, in the special case of common (v) for the source and the observer, the (c+v & c-v) of the source and the (c+v & c-v) of the observer cancel each other out according to the rules of relative motion. Now, your Albert concluded from that failure that light must have the same speed for all observers and in all inertial frames of reference at all times regardless of the actual value of the speed (v).

Let's see where your Einstein got it right and where he got it wrong:

[1] Einstein got it right in the special case of (source & observer) moving with the same speed in the same direction. In this particular case, light, indeed, always travels at a constant speed of (c) as measured by the same observer, regardless of the numerical value of (v).
[2] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving source & observer at rest).
[3] Einstein got it wrong in the special case of (moving observer & source at rest).
[4] Einstein, finally, got it wrong in every case of (moving source & moving observer), except in the special case, where both the (source & observer) are moving with the same speed in the same direction (i.e. Case #1 above).

Therefore, your Einstein's theory of Relativity is 25% right and 75% wrong.

Cincirob: <font>Well by your definition you can color me asinine. As for why Einstein "invented it", the physics world was unable to explain a number of experiments with the theories available. But that's all history. What I haven't found in history is a paradox in relativity. Perhaps you could enlighten me. </font>

AAF: I guess it's your natural color; there is no need for coloring you with it! And it is not all history. Einstein's Relativity is full of paradoxes and contradictions right now and in this moments and you can do nothing about it.

Anon: <i><font># Kantor, J. O. S. A. 52 (1962),978. 1. Criticized in: Burcev, Phys. Lett. 5 no. 1 (1963), pg 44. 2. Repeated by: Babcock and Bergman, J.O.S.A. 54 (1964), pg 147. 3. Repeated by: Rotz, Phys. Lett. 7 no. 4 (1963), pg 252. 4. Repeated by: Waddoups et al., JOSA 55, pg 142 (1965). The consensus (1-4) is that Kantor's non-null result was due to his rotating mirrors dragging the air; repetitions in vacuum yield a null result consistent with SR. </font>

AAF: Again, Anon, you are not as dumb as you look and sound! But you should have provided the link to the above quote; you don't want to be labeled as a 'plagiarist'; do you? Anyway, your above citation recognizes the difference between speeds due to the source and speeds due to the observer; otherwise, Babcock and his friends could never claim to debunk Wallace Kantor's experimental findings. But their supposition of air dragging cannot explain away the positive results of Kantor's experiment. That is because the Fizeau equations for this dragging are well known, and this sort of dragging works in a very specific way; and more importantly Wallace Kantor has taken care of it right at the start of his experiment. I wish I can provide you with the illustration of this experiment; but, for the time being, the the JavaScript and HTML tags are disabled temporarily on this Network; and I can't do it.

Anon: <font>You are a much bigger imbecile that originally projected by your posts.</font>

AAF: A <i>' much bigger imbecile'
is certainly much better and more imposing than one 'little twit' with nothing to say! Anyway, I like you; you're much weaker and easier to kick around than that old moose named 'cincirobiani'; correct? The point is (and you and Cinci know this) that (c plus v) and (c minus v) are implemented by H. Lorentz himself right smack into the Lorentz Transformations. And you just can't deny this very simple fact.

</i></i>