In crackpot theory, WHY does Jeery still beat his mother?

[Uncle Ben]

In modern treatments of relativity, the presence of an ultimate
limiting speed, designated "c", is known to be a direct
consequence of the first postulate.

Bullshit, the limit is consequence of
 Loading Image...
and is nothing whatever to do with the first postulate.

The invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames is an
inevitable consequence of the first postulate combined with

The idiotic invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames
is an inevitable consequence of the something else, dork.
 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/1st/Postulates.htm

a few
reasonable assumptions

It is NOT reasonable to assume
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same
and then try to prove that assumption, you can't use c+v and
have to use (c+v)/(1+v/c) instead!
You have no clue what "reasonable" means, IDIOT!

that must be true for any valid physical
theory.

Too bad it is FALSE for any valid theory, CRETIN.
There have been many peer-reviewed
Oh, here we go.
Wackypedia
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
"Peer review" is proof 11.
Actually the 1905 peer review of Einstein's paper was "It's a load of
rubbish" and the peer review today is  "It's a load of old rubbish".

Here is a free download of a paper published in Physics Education
(written for high school teachers) that you may be interested

I'm a retired engineer that has worked in industry, not a rednecked
schoolmarm in a little red schoolhouse built in a Tennessee back forty.
Proof 13 carries no weight either. Go play with your little red wagon
and leave the navigation to those that know how.

In empty space, light happens
to travel at that speed because the mass of the photon, so far as
is known, equals zero.

Very logical, I'm sure. Shellfish happen to live in the sea because
they are invertebrates (so far as is known). We'll ignore other
invertebrates that don't live in the sea.

Equivalently, it can be stated that
constant c is a direct consequence of the geometric properties of
spacetime.  This geometric justification for the existence of
constant c is all very simple to anybody who cares to read the
first few dozen pages of an elementary textbook such as Taylor &
Wheeler. There is no mystery to it.

There can be no justification for the non-existent, and there is
NO EVIDENCE for a constant c in all frames of reference, only
for a constant c relative to the source.

Have it your own way, blind man.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, blind bitch.

All variants of emission theory agree that there is no intrinsic
limitation on the speed of light in empty space.

Correct!  Well done!  And the same is true for emission fact.
Some people might even doubt light is emitted.

 Yet all variants
of emission theory insist that light is emitted at precisely "c"
relative to the source.

Wrong. Some variants of emission fact insist electromagnetic
radiation at different frequencies have different emission speeds,
but that is too advanced for you, Jeery.

Such a claim would be in direct contradiction to experimental
evidence.

Handwaving again. You have no experimental evidence, but *I* do.
Wanna see? No, of course not, it would be against your religion
 and a bigot such as you is blind.

In emission theory, what miraculous combination of circumstances
results in light being emitted at precisely "c" relative to the
source?

In crackpot theory, what miraculous combination of circumstances results
in
Jeery
still beating hs mother?
In production line theory, what miraculous combination of circumstances
results in Fords being made at precisely the same rate as Chevys?
In ballistic theory, what miraculous combination of circumstances
results in bullets being fired at precisely "v" relative to the rifle?

That is indeed the question. Rifle bullets are not all emitted
at the same speed.

Right.  I fully agree.

There is variation from bullet to bullet.

Right.  I fully agree.

So why, in emission theory, should photons all be emitted with
speed c?

So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted  at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?

Real sources are messy things composed of atoms or other
particles zooming around in rapid thermal motion. It should seem
that light emitted from typical sources ought to show a spread
of velocities in the multiple parts-per-billion level.

Yep. And they  do.

Such a claim would be in direct contradiction to experimental
evidence.

   http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1935CMWCI.522....1M/0000035....
Want to argue with experimental evidence, you ignorant fucking clown?
Produce *YOUR* experimental evidence.

Yet there is no such evidence for such a spread in velocities of
emitted light.

Jeery has never heard of spectral line splitting.

No relationship between that and variable speed of light.

c = nu * lamba.
Since nu is constant,  c is proportional to lambda.
Hence
c1 = nu * lambda1,
c2 = nu * lambda2.
Spread of  a spectral line, spread of velocity.
   http://chinook.kpc.alaska.edu/~ifafv/lecture/miscell/fraunhof/sun_spe...
Do you see any spreading, MORON?
No relationship between Jeery and science.

 Single-attosecond pulses of XUV light have been

generated in the lab. Emission theory suggests that such tight
pulses of light should disperse over distances of just a few
centimeters.
Yet dispersion is not observed, even when attosecond
pulse experiments are conducted in high vacuum chambers.

The firing squad all hit the target from a distance of 20 metres
simultaneously and this is evidence of no dispersion observed. Don't you
think it might be wiser to look for dispersion at a range of 20
KILOmetres,
CRETIN?

Numerous experiments searching for source dependency of the speed
of light have found none.

Numerous experiments searching for source dependency of the speed
of light have found all.
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).

In emission theory, what forces light to be emitted at exactly c
relative to the source?

In ballistic theory, what forces bullets to be emitted at exactly v
relative to the rifle?

That is indeed the question. Rifle bullets are not all emitted
at the same speed. There is variation from bullet to bullet.

In crackpot theory, what forces Jeery to still beat his mother?
Doesn't matter if you don't understand it, Jeery, the evidence is what- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
read more »

Androcles believes in proof by repetition of spam. Experiment means
nothing to him.

Uncle Ben

[C***@comcast.net]

In emission theory, WHY is light emitted at precisely c relative to
the source?

So why, in emission theory, should photons all be emitted with
speed c?

So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?
That is indeed the question.
Rifle bullets are not all emitted at the same speed.
There is variation from bullet to bullet.
So why, in ballistic theory, should bullets all be emitted with speed v?

Yes, you seem to understand the question. It bothers you, so you
try to mock it through obnoxious repetition. But you certainly
don't have an answer to the question.

Why, in emission theory, should photons all be emitted with
speed c with respect to the source? It doesn't matter whether
the source is a tungsten filament, a laser, a radar antenna or
an excited nucleus. Even neutrinos travel at speeds so close to
c that the difference between neutrino speeds and c is almost
immeasurable over interstellar distances.

It is as if emission theory demands that rifles, slingshots, bows
and air guns shoot out bullets, rocks, arrows and BBs at the same
constant, universal speed c, despite the fact that the firing
mechanisms of these different projectile shooters are all
entirely different, and speed "c" holds no special status in
emission theory.

So what is your answer, Androcles? What is so special about c,
given that it has no special status in emission theory? What
magical mechanism adjusts the speed of the emitted photons to
that precise value? Why are neutrinos subject to the same magical
mechanism?

Jerry