On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:50:09 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 09/14/2026 09:32 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 02:11:04 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:One can just look to something like O.W. Richardson's "The Electron
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 03:50:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> HenryWilson wrote:
Paul, Gamma/gamma = 1
You can get the same answer using constant c along with
'transforms'
or variable light speed and no transforms. Which is easier?
*facepalm*
Please shut up until you know what you are talking (about). TIA.
Please shut up till you understand what Einstein actually did.
Says the person who completely misunderstands what Einstein actually
did.
The person who failed to read "at rest" even though Einstein wrote it
*three times*.
Idiot! I have now explained that the section you referred to was the
wrong one. Einstein would have uttered "at rest" thousands of times.
You are so stupid you couldn't quote the right one.
That's rich.
You can make me richer by buying my comprehensive book when it is
published.
Theory of Matter" published circa 1919 and noticing its out of copyright
print and hock all the copies of that you might care.
Of course Usenet posts are "public access" not "public domain",
unless explicitly given, and a given account of "all rights reserved"
has that Usenet is about the most simple publishing method in the world,
and each post by its message-id and content is a little publication
itself with a URL and URN and URI and so on, then that anybody could
make a DOI for it and basically bridge it to WorldCat, OCLC, about ORC
ID, and all these usual sorts of accounts.
True...this is why I am reluctant to say too much about any of the sensational discoveries that my book introduces.
As a favour, I will give a $5 discount to anyone who uses this NG.
On 14/09/2026 19:27, HenryWilson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame
you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is
the same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted
the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
For a verification of the source independence it is sufficient to
compare whether lights from differently moving sources have the same or different speeds. The exact values of those speeds is another problem.
Einstein merely raised it to a postulate to formulate special
relativity.
For that it is sufficient that no observation had shown otherwise.
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 11:55:35 +0300, Mikko wrote:
On 14/09/2026 19:27, HenryWilson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame
you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is
the same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted
the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
For a verification of the source independence it is sufficient to
compare whether lights from differently moving sources have the same or
different speeds. The exact values of those speeds is another problem.
Precisely. .and when you read my book you will learn about many
experiments that prove ballistic theory (BaTh) correct using that very principle.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time
and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already
told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Einstein merely raised it to a
postulate to formulate special relativity.
Precisely. By building on Lorentz's failed theory, he found a mathematical way to make MEASURED light speed always equal c...He just transformed the length and time standards of moving light sources...everything completely imaginary of course.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources
is easily measured at accelerators.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
The result is c. Or if you assume c + k v_source
then k has been measurd to be < 10^-3 even when v_source ~ c
Einstein merely raised it to a
postulate to formulate special relativity.
Precisely. By building on Lorentz's failed theory, he found a mathematical >> way to make MEASURED light speed always equal c...He just transformed the
length and time standards of moving light sources...everything completely
imaginary of course.
A theory can be called 'failed' only when its predictions fail.
Lorentz aether theory never 'failed',
because all of its predictions agree with special relativity.
It was given up upon only because SR is much simpler.
Again, do give an example of -an experimental outcome-
that disagrees with relativity,
Jan
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources
is easily measured at accelerators.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
The result is c. Or if you assume c + k v_source
then k has been measurd to be < 10^-3 even when v_source ~ c
Einstein merely raised it to a
postulate to formulate special relativity.
Precisely. By building on Lorentz's failed theory, he found a mathematical >> way to make MEASURED light speed always equal c...He just transformed the
length and time standards of moving light sources...everything completely
imaginary of course.
A theory can be called 'failed' only when its predictions fail.
Lorentz aether theory never 'failed',
because all of its predictions agree with special relativity.
It was given up upon only because SR is much simpler.
Again, do give an example of -an experimental outcome-
that disagrees with relativity,
Jan
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources
is easily measured at accelerators.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> HenryWilson wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
Yes. First of all, the above is an experimental fact, i.e. a fact based
on experimental evidence; NOT just a postulate.
sciences, different from mathematics, we do not make proofs; a natural-scientific theory cannot be proven true
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one.
same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the
light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources
is easily measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do
you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light?
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that time >>>>>>>> and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE frame..inversely. >>>>>>>> [...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference >>>>>>> frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have already >>>>>>> told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not one. >>>>> Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference frame you >>>>> choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in vacuum is the >>>>> same, no matter in which reference frame the source that emitted the >>>>> light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources
is easily measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do
you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
Apart from showing that the speed of the photon does not depend on the
speed of its source it is also a one-way speed of light measurement.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnLearn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that
time and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE
frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have
already told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not
one.
frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in
vacuum is the same, no matter in which reference frame the source
that emitted the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily measured
at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do
you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
Apart from showing that the speed of the photon does not depend on the
speed of its source it is also a one-way speed of light measurement.
Jan
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnLearn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes that
time and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE
frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial reference
frames is an experimental fact instead. It already has been an
experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived. As I have
already told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not
one.
frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in
vacuum is the same, no matter in which reference frame the source
that emitted the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily measured
at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do
you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start and finish.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng at c
and so was hushed up.
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled to produce any answer.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnLearn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes
that time and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE
frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial
reference frames is an experimental fact instead. It already
has been an experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived.
As I have already told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not
one.
frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in
vacuum is the same, no matter in which reference frame the
source that emitted the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How
do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of
light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start
and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng at
c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled to
produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Jan
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:03:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' LahnLearn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which reference
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both an
observer and a moving light source, automatically assumes
that time and space are invisibly transformed in the SOURCE
frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial
reference frames is an experimental fact instead. It already
has been an experimental fact centuries before Einstein lived.
As I have already told you *at* *least* *four* *times* now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is not
one.
frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the speed of light in
vacuum is the same, no matter in which reference frame the
source that emitted the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How
do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of
light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start
and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
How did they synchronize them?
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng at
c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
Why else would they not measure its OW speed with your same two miniature clocks?
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled to
produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one that looked like it was travelling near c.
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:03:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars'Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which
Lahn wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both
an observer and a moving light source, automatically
assumes that time and space are invisibly transformed in
the SOURCE frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong.
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial
reference frames is an experimental fact instead. It
already has been an experimental fact centuries before
Einstein lived.
As I have already told you *at* *least* *four* *times*
now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is
not one.
reference frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the
speed of light in vacuum is the same, no matter in which
reference frame the source that emitted the light is at rest.
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
How did they synchronize them?
You really need to find out how a big accelerator centre,
like CERN works.
Everything on site is synchronised with the master synchrotron.
Detectors are time-gated, and time of flight is used for interpreting
all kinds of experiments.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng
at c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
Why else would they not measure its OW speed with your same two
miniature clocks?
My clocks???
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled
to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot measure back into the beam,
Jan
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:03:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
How did they synchronize them?
You really need to find out how a big accelerator centre,
like CERN works.
Everything on site is synchronised with the master synchrotron.
Detectors are time-gated, and time of flight is used for interpreting
all kinds of experiments.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng
at c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
Why else would they not measure its OW speed with your same two
miniature clocks?
My clocks???
What is the diference between the beam's back and front?It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled
to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,
Jan
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:17:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:03:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
How did they synchronize them?
You really need to find out how a big accelerator centre,
like CERN works.
Everything on site is synchronised with the master synchrotron.
Detectors are time-gated, and time of flight is used for interpreting
all kinds of experiments.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng
at c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
Why else would they not measure its OW speed with your same two
miniature clocks?
My clocks???
The imaginary little clocks that you synchronized to better than e-16 seconds.
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled
to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,What is the diference between the beam's back and front?
How fast is the beam moving?, That sis directly measureable
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
My clocks???
The imaginary little clocks that you synchronized to better than e-16
seconds.
I synchronised???
You forgot in your desire to be contrarian that we are talking about an experiment that was done decades ago?
(and no, time of flight was about 50 nanoseconds iirc,
a part of a nanosecond is good enough)
What is the diference between the beam's back and front?It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be
fiddled to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,
How fast is the beam moving?, That sis directly measureable
The photon source are relativistic neutral pions.
'Forward' in physics jargon is continuing in the same direction,
Jan
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:17:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:03:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:I am aware of Einstein's postulate. It is not a proof.
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:41:39 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' >>>>>>>>>>> Lahn wrote:Learn to read. I essentially wrote: No matter which
HenryWilson wrote:
The assumption that light speed is c in the frames of both >>>>>>>>>>>>> an observer and a moving light source, automatically >>>>>>>>>>>>> assumes that time and space are invisibly transformed in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the SOURCE frame..inversely.
[...]
No, that is such a nonsense that it is not even wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>
That the speed of light in vacuum is c in all inertial >>>>>>>>>>>> reference frames is an experimental fact instead. It
already has been an experimental fact centuries before >>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein lived.
As I have already told you *at* *least* *four* *times* >>>>>>>>>>>> now.
Speed does not exist without a reference frame. 'Space' is >>>>>>>>>>> not one.
reference frame you choose as the one to be at rest, the
speed of light in vacuum is the same, no matter in which
reference frame the source that emitted the light is at rest. >>>>>>>>>
Category error here.
[snip repeats of misunderstandings]
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
That's just what they had.
Do look it up.
How did they synchronize them?
You really need to find out how a big accelerator centre,
like CERN works.
Everything on site is synchronised with the master synchrotron.
Detectors are time-gated, and time of flight is used for interpreting
all kinds of experiments.
The reverse pion was observed and found to be obviously not movigng
at c and so was hushed up.
So now you are falling back on sweet little lies.
Not a good idea, in science.
Why else would they not measure its OW speed with your same two
miniature clocks?
My clocks???
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled >>>>> to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot measure back into the beam,
What's the difference between front and back? How fast is the beam moving?
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 13:43:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
My clocks???
The imaginary little clocks that you synchronized to better than e-16
seconds.
I synchronised???
You forgot in your desire to be contrarian that we are talking about an experiment that was done decades ago?
(and no, time of flight was about 50 nanoseconds iirc,
a part of a nanosecond is good enough)
What is the diference between the beam's back and front?It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be
fiddled to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the one
that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,
How fast is the beam moving?, That sis directly measureable
The photon source are relativistic neutral pions.
'relativistic'??? since the pions were traveling near c then naturally the photos would do the same.
'Forward' in physics jargon is continuing in the same direction,
Look, I don't now what experiment you are talking about
but to directly measure OWLS of anything, you need two detectors in
series... and in the case of small individual particles, the first one
would either alter its speed or completely destroy it. Particle speeds including gammas have been traditionally estimated via cloud chamber
curves with considerable success. The speed of particles in an accelerator ring of known diameter can obviously be easily measured...but accurately measuring OWLS from a moving source is still virtually impossible
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 13:43:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
My clocks???
The imaginary little clocks that you synchronized to better than
e-16 seconds.
I synchronised???
You forgot in your desire to be contrarian that we are talking about
an experiment that was done decades ago?
(and no, time of flight was about 50 nanoseconds iirc,
a part of a nanosecond is good enough)
What is the diference between the beam's back and front?It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be
fiddled to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the
one that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,
How fast is the beam moving?, That sis directly measureable
The photon source are relativistic neutral pions.
'relativistic'??? since the pions were traveling near c then naturally
the photos would do the same.
The point is that they don't move faster than c,
despite their source being already at near c.
(so Einsteinian velocity addition verified, emission theories falsified)
'Forward' in physics jargon is continuing in the same direction,
Look, I don't now what experiment you are talking about
That was obvious.
but to directly measure OWLS of anything, you need two detectors in
series... and in the case of small individual particles, the first one
would either alter its speed or completely destroy it. Particle speeds
including gammas have been traditionally estimated via cloud chamber
curves with considerable success. The speed of particles in an
accelerator ring of known diameter can obviously be easily
measured...but accurately measuring OWLS from a moving source is still
virtually impossible
All timing is taken from the proton synchrotron,
so from the bunching of the primary collisions.
Thereafter it is forward in time, by causality,
Jan
Here is the proof again:
Postulate: Light speed 'u' always equals c.
u = c
= c(c-v)/(c-v)
...
= (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)]
...
= c
It's called 'mathemagics'...and I'm the first person in
120 years who hasn't been fooled by it.
I'm the first person in 120 years who hasn't been fooled by it.
Why should the bloody pion move faster than the beam?
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 10:24:51 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 13:43:31 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
My clocks???
The imaginary little clocks that you synchronized to better than
e-16 seconds.
I synchronised???
You forgot in your desire to be contrarian that we are talking about
an experiment that was done decades ago?
(and no, time of flight was about 50 nanoseconds iirc,
a part of a nanosecond is good enough)
What is the diference between the beam's back and front?It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be >>>>>>>>> fiddled to produce any answer.
And hard lies are worse,
Two pions were produced but they only measured the speed of the
one that looked like it was travelling near c.
You cannot nmeasure back into the beam,
How fast is the beam moving?, That sis directly measureable
The photon source are relativistic neutral pions.
'relativistic'??? since the pions were traveling near c then naturally
the photos would do the same.
The point is that they don't move faster than c,
despite their source being already at near c.
You said some moved forward. That means they travelled faster than the
beam.
(so Einsteinian velocity addition verified, emission theories falsified)
I told you his VA equation is just the postulate disguised.
Here is the proof again:
Postulate: Light speed 'u' always equals c.
u = c
= c(c-v)/(c-v)
= (c-v)/(1-v/c)
= (c-v)/[(1-(cv/c^2))
= (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)]
= (c-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)] = c
So if you postulate that u always = c, you can make c-v always = c, where
v is any speed. The 'v' simply cancels out.
It's called 'mathemagics'...and I'm the first person in 120 years who
hasn't been fooled by it. I hope Paul Andersen notices this.
'Forward' in physics jargon is continuing in the same direction,
Look, I don't now what experiment you are talking about
That was obvious.
but to directly measure OWLS of anything, you need two detectors in
series... and in the case of small individual particles, the first one
would either alter its speed or completely destroy it. Particle speeds
including gammas have been traditionally estimated via cloud chamber
curves with considerable success. The speed of particles in an
accelerator ring of known diameter can obviously be easily
measured...but accurately measuring OWLS from a moving source is still
virtually impossible
All timing is taken from the proton synchrotron,
so from the bunching of the primary collisions.
Thereafter it is forward in time, by causality,
Why should the bloody pion move faster than the beam?
Jan
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily measured
at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do
you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start and finish.
The reverse pion
was observed and found to be obviously not movigng at c
and so was hushed up.
It is a fallacy to assume that his happened here. However, even theApart from showing that the speed of the photon does not depend on the
speed of its source it is also a one-way speed of light measurement.
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled to produce any answer.
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> And that is an experimental fact.Do get up to date.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured. >>>>>
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily measured
at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do >>>> you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light? >>>
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start and
finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes the
claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as is also explained in the Veritasium video.
The reverse pion
There is no such thing.
was observed and found to be obviously not movigng at c
The speed of this pion does not matter as we are interested in the speed
of light, i.e. photons, instead. Of course the speed of a pion cannot
be c (in any inertial reference frame) because its mass is non-zero (it
is constituted by a quark and an antiquark whose masses are not zero, respectively, to begin with):
v = c reU(1 reA m-# crU|reoE-#).
and so was hushed up.
Nonsense; it is not possible to "hush up" a pion so that it moves at c,
see above.
It is a fallacy to assume that his happened here. However, even theApart from showing that the speed of the photon does not depend on the
speed of its source it is also a one-way speed of light measurement.
It is not a direct measurement. It is one that can easily be fiddled to
produce any answer.
most diligent experimenter will have to synchronize the clocks that they
use to measure the speed of light. Even if they do not use light to synchronize them, but the speed of something material that they now,
then in measuring its speed they have to use light at some point because
they have to _observe_ it.
Here is the proof again:
Postulate: Light speed 'u' always equals c.
u = c = c(c-v)/(c-v)
...
= (u-v)/[1-(uv/c^2)]
...
= c
It's called 'mathemagics'...and I'm the first person in 120 years who
hasn't been fooled by it.
Ralph, this is magnificent.
You start by ASSUMING
u = c
then perform a sequence of algebraic identities and finish with
u = c.
And from this you conclude that you have exposed a fraud in the
relativistic velocity-addition law.
No.
You have demonstrated:
c = c.
The relativistic velocity transformation is
u - v
u' = -------------
1 - uv/c^2
for arbitrary admissible u and v.
THEN, as a special case, put u=c:
c - v
u' = ------------- = c.
1 - v/c
That shows that c is a fixed point of the Lorentz velocity
transformation.
It does NOT derive the transformation.
And it certainly doesn't prove that
c - v = c.
In fact, for v != 0,
c - v != c.
What is equal to c is
(c-v)/(1-v/c).
The denominator matters.
You've removed half the equation and called the remainder "mathemagics".
I'm the first person in 120 years who hasn't been fooled by it.
No, Ralph.
You have discovered that if you start with c, multiply it by 1, and
simplify, you still have c.
This is approximately the same revolutionary technique Richard Hachel recently used to differentiate his own equation, integrate it back, and rediscover his own equation.
Apparently 2026 is a remarkable year for the fundamental theorem of
algebraic tautology.
Why should the bloody pion move faster than the beam?
It doesn't have to.
"Forward" means travelling in the forward direction.
It does not mean:
faster than whatever produced it.
A passenger walking toward the front of a train is walking forward.
He need not overtake the train.
After 120 years, perhaps physics was not defeated by "mathemagics".
Perhaps Ralph has been defeated by an adverb.
The relativistic velocity transformation is
u - v
u' = -------------
1 - uv/c^2
The relativistic velocity transformation is
u - v
u' = -------------
1 - uv/c^2
The 'v' can be anything because it cancels out and the
equation reverts to the postulate.
his VAE is just an alternative to his P2.
120 years and nobody else saw it.
En quelques lignes, on aboutit |a :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?jf4hUq4rZHpGk-pYuw3gAMM4ZY8@jntp/Data.Media:2>
En quelques lignes...
Mais mes amis, c'est le B A BA de ce que j'enseigne, et on en est
encore
|a discuter de trucs et de machins pu|-rils ou ridicules.
C'est lamentable.
R.H.
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 19:29:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
En quelques lignes, on aboutit |a :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?jf4hUq4rZHpGk-pYuw3gAMM4ZY8@jntp/Data.Media:2>
En quelques lignes...
Mais mes amis, c'est le B A BA de ce que j'enseigne, et on en est
encore
|a discuter de trucs et de machins pu|-rils ou ridicules.
C'est lamentable.
R.H.
If you are stil forcing students to believe Einstein's totally unnecesary description of the universe then I feel sorry for you. Why don't you teach them that Newton's theory says it all in a much easier way...
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 19:29:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
En quelques lignes, on aboutit |a :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?jf4hUq4rZHpGk-pYuw3gAMM4ZY8@jntp/Data.Media:2>
En quelques lignes...
Mais mes amis, c'est le B A BA de ce que j'enseigne, et on en est
encore
|a discuter de trucs et de machins pu|-rils ou ridicules.
C'est lamentable.
R.H.
If you are stil forcing students to believe Einstein's totally unnecesary description of the universe then I feel sorry for you. Why don't you teach them that Newton's theory says it all in a much easier way...
Le 23/09/2026 |a 02:13, HenryWilson a |-crit :
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 19:29:55 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
En quelques lignes, on aboutit |a :
<http://nemoweb.net/jntp?jf4hUq4rZHpGk-pYuw3gAMM4ZY8@jntp/Data.Media:
En quelques lignes...
Mais mes amis, c'est le B A BA de ce que j'enseigne, et on en est
encore
|a discuter de trucs et de machins pu|-rils ou ridicules.
C'est lamentable.
R.H.
If you are stil forcing students to believe Einstein's totally
unnecesary description of the universe then I feel sorry for you. Why
don't you teach them that Newton's theory says it all in a much easier
way...
Guess what?
Richard is trying to restore Newton/Galileo for accelerated motion while keeping Einstein/Poincare for inertial motion.
Which, unsurprisingly, leads to some rather interesting inconsistencies.
You're trying to restore Newton everywhere.
So perhaps you'll eventually meet.
Richard is digging down from Einstein.
You're digging up from Newton.
I'm genuinely curious which one of you reaches the other first. :-)
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> And that is an experimental fact.Do get up to date.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly measured. >>>>
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily measured
at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. How do >>> you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way speed of light? >>
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes the
claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as is also explained in the Veritasium video.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start
and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes the
claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as is also
explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light
emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light from
an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Jan
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are >>>>> detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start
and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes the
claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as is also
explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light
emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light from
an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Rubbish, they wouldn't have the required accuracy even there. They would
need to measure time differences of maybe e-20
Jan
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction are
detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its start
and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes the
claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as is also
explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light from
an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Rubbish, they wouldn't have the required accuracy even there. They would
need to measure time differences of maybe e-20
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
wrote:
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly
measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons.
How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way
speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction
are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes
the claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as
is also explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light
emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light
from an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Rubbish, they wouldn't have the required accuracy even there. They
would need to measure time differences of maybe e-20
So you are back in your blind denialism.
No more to be said then,
Jan
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:24:37 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:03:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
HenryWilson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 13:14:24 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:56:46 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
And that is an experimental fact.
aha! No. OWLS from a moving source has never been directly >>>>>>>>>> measured.
Do get up to date.
One way speed of light from relativistic sources is easily
measured at accelerators.
Doubtful.
Your doubts are your probem.
Your arrogance from blissful _ignorance_ is yours.
(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. >>>>>>>> How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way >>>>>>>> speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction >>>>>>> are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight,
and is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes
the claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as
is also explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light
emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light
from an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Rubbish, they wouldn't have the required accuracy even there. They
would need to measure time differences of maybe e-20
So you are back in your blind denialism.
No more to be said then,
Look! I know this is a relativity news group and you fellows like to show
off your amazing knowledge of that very ingenious theory...and, might I
say, you do that very well. But frankly, I don't have a very high opinion
of Einstein's theories and as pointed out in my book, even though many aspects of them are workable and can produce right answers, they should
never been prioritized over Newton, whose almost infinitely simpler description of the universe works perfectly well if you are bright enough
to intelligently investigate. After all, one of the main reasons that Einstein was accepted was that Newtionian Astronomy very acurately
measured the precession of Mercury. In other words, Newton's incredible ability to predict very accurately was ironicaly used to bring about his downfall...all because the whole Physics community of Europe was shattered and embarrased when the MMX proved all their theories wrong.
Jan
On 09/25/2026 04:02 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:24:37 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
No, not all their theories, just the naive classical account of space-contraction, which isn't the informed super-classical account of(from neutral pi meson decay for example)
A neutral pion will usually decay into two high-energy photons. >>>>>>>>> How do you think this would allow a measurement of the one-way >>>>>>>>> speed of light?
You clearly have not looked up the original publication.
A highly relativistic pi_0 is produced, at a known instant,
in a known direction.
It decays (almost immediately) into two photons.
Events in which one of the photons goes in the forward direction >>>>>>>> are detected. (the backward photon was not detected)
Speed of the photon is directly measured from time of flight, and >>>>>>>> is found to be c.
What crap. 'Direct' means two synchronized clocks detecting its
start and finish.
Yes, and guess how they were synchronized? :-D It is always the
synchronization of the measuring clocks _using light_ that refutes >>>>>> the claims of people having measured the one-way speed of light, as >>>>>> is also explained in the Veritasium video.
You can used two toothed wheels mounted on the same axle.
Like Fizeau could alreay have done.
(he used a mirror only for convinience)
More generally, any stabe flasher will do.
(as explained in a previous posting)
If you want to insist: The CERN experiment measured the OWS of light >>>>> emitted forward by relativistic pions compared to the OWS of light
from an ordinary source, and found they were the same.
Rubbish, they wouldn't have the required accuracy even there. They
would need to measure time differences of maybe e-20
So you are back in your blind denialism.
No more to be said then,
Look! I know this is a relativity news group and you fellows like to
show off your amazing knowledge of that very ingenious theory...and,
might I say, you do that very well. But frankly, I don't have a very
high opinion of Einstein's theories and as pointed out in my book, even
though many aspects of them are workable and can produce right answers,
they should never been prioritized over Newton, whose almost infinitely
simpler description of the universe works perfectly well if you are
bright enough to intelligently investigate. After all, one of the main
reasons that Einstein was accepted was that Newtionian Astronomy very
acurately measured the precession of Mercury. In other words, Newton's
incredible ability to predict very accurately was ironicaly used to
bring about his downfall...all because the whole Physics community of
Europe was shattered and embarrased when the MMX proved all their
theories wrong.
Jan
real space-contraction.
What I see here is all my arguments stand and none yours do.
The record also observes this.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 121:10:02 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,208 |