> In article comcast.com>,
> "Spaceman" wrote:
>

>> Shrikeback@gmail.com 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.