From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:07:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 14/09/2026 19:05, HenryWilson wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical
theories.

It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.

There you go again.
Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,

You will have to read my book to learn about those.

The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
author is stupidity.

Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman

An attempt to swich the topic shows that you understand that you can't
defend your claims.

I understand the limitations of SR. You don't even understand what it is
al about.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 16/09/2026 02:25, HenryWilson wrote:

On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:07:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 14/09/2026 19:05, HenryWilson wrote:

On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:41:19 +0300, Mikko wrote:

On 14/09/2026 02:28, HenryWilson wrote:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 12:59:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

EInstein's mathematics is valid. Mathematicians have inproved the >>>>>>>> presentation and connected relativity to rigorous mathematical >>>>>>>> theories.

It is completely imaginary. It works in many practical
situations...but goes terribly wrong in others.

There you go again.
Please supply one instance of this 'terrible wrongness'.
So an -experimental- outcome that falsifies special relativity,

You will have to read my book to learn about those.

The only thing one can learn from a book written by a stupid ignorant
author is stupidity.

Did you acquire yours by reading Feynman

An attempt to swich the topic shows that you understand that you can't
defend your claims.

I understand the limitations of SR. You don't even understand what it is
al about.

That you again switch the topic shows the same as always.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:

Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is
c relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.

In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation

Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E,

and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There
is no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

Stefan Ram wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:

Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is
c relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.

In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation

Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E,

and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There
is no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source.

There is no such thing as "Empty Space".

it has to hit something...

it doesn't doge stuff..

so it cannot ever reach 'it's' speed of light.

Vacumns do not exist.

empty space does not exist.

dat is why the earth revolves around the sun...
the sun is in it's way.

wat is the speed of light in the ocean?

if it don't hit a fish...
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 29 Sep 2026 10:56:10 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote or quoted:

Maxwell did not say one way or other whether the speed of light is c >>relative to its source. From what he did say we can infer that he
thought that that depeds on the motion of the source. Maxwell thought
that the speed of light is c in some frame that was later called ether.

In a reference frame, Maxwell's equations yield the wave equation

Nabla^2 E = mu_0 eps_0 d^2/dt^2 E,

and the solutions have speed 1/sqrt(mu_0 eps_0), which is c. There is
no source term, i.e., no dependency on the speed of a source.

Maxwell believed light was carried by an Aether medium. He produced a
number that was close to the then estimated speed of light. It turned out
to be a very important universal constant, relating to the mutual
induction between electricity and magnetism. It was subsequently found to
also represent the speed of light relative to its source...and there is nothing in Maxwell's equations that suggests otherwise. If you think light does not move at c relative to its source...which might be possible...I
would like to hear your explanation.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2