In article
comcast.com>,
"Spaceman" wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 7:32 am, "Spaceman"
>> wrote:
>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>
>>>> Look, you don't impress me by calling me an idiot or a moron. I've
>>>> read Penrose as well as books on 3D modeling. Your simple systems
>>>> don't account for real-world effects that astronomers and physicists
>>>> measure. They're good for making pretty pictures, but they fail at
>>>> relativistic effects.
>>>
>>> Actually it does, The simple system accounts for everything.
>>> If you knew how it works, you would agree, but sadly you have been
>>> brainwashed by the transform crap that actually DOES NOT WORK
>>> and will cause crashing before crashing would actually occur
>>> according to your silly transform bullshit.-
>>
>> Okay, so please explain the constancy of the relative
>> velocity of light in all directions from all frames of
>> reference, no matter what the relative velocities of
>> those frames of reference are to one another.
>
> I don't need to explain such since such is actually false.
> The relative velocity of light is not constant to all frames.
> The only time the velocity is constant is in source and
> observer"at rest" conditions.
>
>
>
>> This
>> phenomena has been observed, and was the driving
>> observation behind SRT. So, this space is left for
>> you to find an alternative explanation that is just
>> as elegant and useful:-------->
>
> I have explained such many times here in this group.
> SRT has been using tricks such as using the relative wavelength
> being measured instead of the physical wavelength for
> the old trick of "wavelength*frequency = speed" method.
> If the "physical wavelength" is used you find the relative
> speed instead.
> Just as you need to measure and use the physical distances traveled
> to find a relative to the gound speed.
>
> A simple proof could be performed by using 1 second of light
> from a source.
> All "at rest" with the source objects will in fact see 1 second of light,
> but of course any object traveling towards the source would see
> less than one second of light and any moving away from the source
> would in fact see more than 1 second of light.
> This simple proof confirms the speed of light is relative, and not
> constant to all frames.
Spaceman is special-casing himself out of the discussion. His
fundamental assumptions of how the universe work don't at all fit with
the ones of mainstream science. I suppose that for certain conditions,
predictions made by his model of the universe will work ... which is why
he always insists on those special cases.
