No postulate of light is violated in Galilean transformation.

[ram1024]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

1. distance is immutable. in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

2. time is immutable. in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works. Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with. so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

 

[quantumdude]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

That is totally irrational. The data are the means by which universe reveals the rules of the game to us. We don't make them up.

1. distance is immutable.

Wrong. It depends on one's state of motion.

in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

The universe is under no duty to make sense to you. It is you who must conform your thinking to the experimental results.

2. time is immutable.

Wrong. It depends on one's state of motion.

in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

The universe is under no duty to make sense to you. It is you who must conform your thinking to the experimental results.

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works.

That's the only thing you've got right so far.

Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with.

Wrong. We do not fudge them, they are changed by one's state of motion.

so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

What are you babbling about?

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

You just don't get it.

The "experiments" and the "funky math" are done indepenently of each other. We observe things in the universe, and we write mathematical laws that describe them. We don't conclude that light speed is Lorentz invariant because of mathematics, we conclude it because of experimental results. If the results had contradicted SR, we'd have thrown it out. Simple as that.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

Try listening to someone who knows better for a change.

 

[ram1024]

Good work with that "delete post" thing you do, very mature way to behave.

The "experiments" and the "funky math" are done indepenently of each other. We observe things in the universe, and we write mathematical laws that describe them. We don't conclude that light speed is Lorentz invariant because of mathematics, we conclude it because of experimental results. If the results had contradicted SR, we'd have thrown it out. Simple as that.

but you DIDN'T do that. the experiments concluded one thing based on faulty assumptions, you saw that then decided to invent a whole system on the data, then when someone comes along and says "Hey, why the heck are you calculating all this unnecessary irrational CRAP" you tell them "F off, this is how the universe works"

SR is a hundred year blunder, why cling to something illogical, wrong, and tedious?

i pity you

 

[Janus]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

1. distance is immutable. in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

2. time is immutable. in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works. Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with. so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

You know, I think I've found someplace where you will feel right at home:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

 

[quantumdude]

Good work with that "delete post" thing you do, very mature way to behave.

*Gawk* You make two consecutive garbage posts that have nothing to do with the thread, and you dare talk about my behavior?

but you DIDN'T do that. the experiments concluded one thing based on faulty assumptions, you saw that then decided to invent a whole system on the data,

The assumptions are only faulty based on your extremely narrow view of the world.

then when someone comes along and says "Hey, why the heck are you calculating all this unnecessary irrational CRAP" you tell them "F off, this is how the universe works"

That's because the fool telling me that it is irrational is demonstrably wrong.

SR is a hundred year blunder, why cling to something illogical, wrong, and tedious?

Because it is none of those things to anyone who understands physics.

i pity you

I'll take that as a complement.

This silly thread is done. None of the anti-SR people involved are either willing or capable of intelligent dialog on the subject.