Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light
beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other
- in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we
can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the
principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Does w=c-v comes into conflict with the principle of relativity? Theoretical physicists? Theoretical physicists:

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images/articles/f_pic31.jpg

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 00:43:52 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light

beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other
- in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along

the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that
we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light
relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict
with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Although it’s nice to see Petcho outing relativity as a massive fraud perpetrated by out of
work mathematicians who think 1+1=3, I still think he is going about it the wrong way.
We already know the constancy of c in all frames is a fake. We already know that the
Lorentz transformation is a mathematical fudge to make two different speeds look the
same. So that the Einstein cult can claim large salaries teaching nonsense to gullible
young students.
But it’s better to point out the other lies the Einstein cult makes. Like Ives- Stillwell
falsifying the predictions for classical theory to make relativity look like the only
one who can explain the observations in the experiment. Notice the correct way to
calculate the offset in the experiment is by using a formula using frequency. Notice
even the relativists use frequency to calculate the offset for SR! But notice that
they prefer to use the incorrect method using wavelength for a classical model!!
Knowing full well it gives the wrong prediction. Kind of like..”Heads I win, tails you lose”

Or with Sagnac. Notice the correct way to calculate a fringe shift for a classical
model when the setup rotates...is to calculate how far the light travels on each
path in the *source frame*. After all we do that for the Michelson Morley experiment. But relativists like to pretend that the best way to calculate the prediction for classical is to incorrectly calculate the path lengths in the experiment or lab frame! (Using c+-v in the lab frame). Of course if you falsify the prediction for classical by not calculating path length in the source frame you will succeed.
But make no mistake Petcho...Calculate the path lengths for classical
theory in the source frame where the source doesn’t move and the
experiment and lab rotate around the source....you will find that there
is a fringe shift for classical.
Forget constant c in all frames Petcho. Out the relativists with lies
they cannot defend with the snake oil of the Lorentz transformation.

Does w=c-v comes into conflict with the principle of relativity? Theoretical physicists? Theoretical physicists:

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images/articles/f_pic31.jpg

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Einstein (later parroted by Feynman https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html) used to teach that variable speed of light contradicts the principle of relativity. So the constant speed of light, a blatant nonsense, became a logical consequence of (
that is, just as true as) the principle of relativity.

Leonard Susskind found it profitable to formalize the Einstein-Feynman fraudulent argument. Here is perhaps the most idiotic syllogism in the history of science:

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of
light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same
velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity." https://youtu.
be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)