The secret goldfish

[Seeker]

Speaking of Big Pharma, what is going on with Dr. Fauci & President Biden (if they are still the original characters at ages 81 & 79, respectively) catching & recatching covid after both having had both vaccines and both boosters, and supposed to be among the most eminent and protected people in the country? Talk about sending mixed signals to the public, or is that the "divide and conquer" intention? I am reminded, from memory, of a scene from the 1979 movie "Caligula", where one of his courtiers (behind his back, of course) exclaims "What new madness is this?".

 

[Claude Badley]

The difference between "good fascism" and "bad fascism" is that between Franco and General Pinochet in Chile respectively. Pinochet worked for the Chicago Boys, trapping Chile in the Western debt system. This is why, when Boris Nemtsov was trying to deal with the chaos in Russia in the 1990s (i.e. before Putin) he said in a much quoted phrase "Russia needs a Pinochet." He did not say "Russia needs a Franco" because, as a liberal Russian and a Jew he wanted to subjugate Russia to the Western financial system.

Pinochet never echoed Franco's statement that "Spain must be rid of Jews, Communists and Freemasons" - Spain having been free of Jews for centuries. Pinochet, like Allende, was a Freemason, though they belonged to different lodges. Are you now starting to understand the issues???

During the Russian Revolution the communists attacked, looted and destroyed churches everywhere - Lenin's Cheka being over 50% Jewish. Synagogues were destroyed too, but by the White forces, the nationalist anti-Communists. Same thing in Spain: the Anarchists were attacking, looting and destroying Catholic churches all over Spain. In contrast, as George Orwell notes, the anarchists in Barcelona (and Madrid) allowed Protestant churches to open unmolested - revealing that the underlying agenda of the likes of Orwell and Noam Chomsky is a Judaeo-Christian liberal democratic pro-financial plunder agenda, now proven by Chomsky's demand for everyone to be COVID-jabbed or be locked up forever! I.e. the Left has proven itself far worse than the extreme Right now that capitalism controls the world but faces no possibility of genuine expansion since it denies the possibility of outer space travel (basically due to Einstein's claim that nothing can travel faster than light - as well as the negative effects of modern physics in solving the energy crisis of mankind without exterminating the majority of us, via e.g. COVID jabs)!

Following the Nemtsov agenda, the halfwitted overconfident oligarch Boris Berezovsky then pushed for Putin to replace Boris Yeltsin, expecting Putin to be his puppet. This is why he later suicided, because Putin proved to be more a Franco than a Pinochet! Capiche? The business of names for different strands of fascism is still underway, but the real problem is that the masses do not understand the issues - and the financier elites wish to keep it that way.

BTW - nice looking farm. Is that a Douglas Fir in the centre picture or am I just pig-ignorant of North American conifers as well as being a fascist pig?

Yours faithfully
CB - rF

 

[Claude Badley]

Well, Seeker, you have caught the...

Speaking of Big Pharma, what is going on with Dr. Fauci & President Biden (if they are still the original characters at ages 81 & 79, respectively) catching & recatching covid after both having had both vaccines and both boosters, and supposed to be among the most eminent and protected people in the country? Talk about sending mixed signals to the public, or is that the "divide and conquer" intention? I am reminded, from memory, of a scene from the 1979 movie "Caligula", where one of his courtiers (behind his back, of course) exclaims "What new madness is this?".

...correct implication behind the political comedy. The supposed leaders have become the demented fools distracting us from who is really running the show - Big Pharma executives and global financiers (not merely US elites alone).

Probably the worst victims here are Israeli Jews, who are not just being deluded by the Zionist fantasy. Coming up for the 5th jab they will be told that their illness is not due to repeated jabs but unjabbed Palestinians spreading variant COVID and no doubt other filthy diseases. I.e. we are being set up for genocide, the poor and deluded encouraged to kill each other as an international gladiatorial show - halfwit emperors Biden and (increasingly so) Fauci just looking on and reading the idiot sheet prompts.

Proof for this is here in Australia where the government has legislated for employees injured by vaccines mandated by the employer to have legal representation and compensation for injuries. Meanwhile the insurance companies are refusing to pay out. The employers however are being bullied by the governments to get their employees jabbed. I.e. the workplace and society are now but a sick gladiatorial show. But the masses are still meant to honor the health, legal and government authorities, this being a case of: morituri te salutant.*

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley - resident Fascist

*Those who are about to die salute thee (the emperor)!

 

[Seeker]

One of those little English jobs

If this thread needs to get back on topic, according to one version, the future Samuel Goldwyn first became "Samuel Goldfish" ("job" as in "role" or "job title") while living with relatives in Birmingham, England, who "Anglicized" (made "English" sounding) his original name. As far as being "The Secret Goldfish", Samuel Goldfish was originally a glove maker, and gloves make the hands hidden/secret. Connecting this to the Elite Cabal, Goldfish learned this trade in Gloversville, New York, originally known as "Kingsborough", and he became a very successful salesman for the "Elite" Glove Company. Titles from two of the films he produced may apply to our situation today, "The Best Years of Our Lives" for before the pandemic, and "Dead End" for now.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hello Seeker! Thanks for the posts. It's starting to feel like old times around here.

Considering the variety of topics that have been raised, I'm feeling that I should distribute the posts to their various appropriate old threads.

Inasmuch as I believe that 1698code's posts were shown to be directly applicable to the original thread topic, I don't see any reason why they can't stay here. Or, another appropriate thread about gematria exists on the site here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/666-888-and-the-solar-logos.1958/

Would anyone have an objection if I move Claude Badley's posts to a pre-existing thread about fascism and/or its relation to science and technology?

Similarly, I would like to move the posts about covid-19 to a more appropriate location.

More later...

 

[Seeker]

Just some nonsense concerning Samuel (Goldfish) Goldwyn about one third down on a page where all of the links appear to be broken - https://planetaryinvasion.blogspot.com/

PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT RUSSIA IS FAR AWAY
FROM THE UNITED STATES BUT IN FACT...
IT IS REALLY JUST A HOP, SKIP AND A JUMP
BY WAY OF ALASKA....

SAMUEL GOLDWYN OF METRO GOLDWYN MAYOR
WAS A DESCENDENT OF THE YUKON GOLD RUSH
GENERATION. HE IS ALSO A DESCENDANT OF
EARLY RAILROAD TYCOONS. WHO DO YOU THINK
IS RELATED TO SAMUEL GOLDWYN?

GEORGE WALKER BUSH!

WHO ELSE?

A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!!!

INCLUDING... AL CAPONE, GEORGE RAFT, HUMPHREY BOGART,
CAREY GRANT, TONY CURTIS, RODNEY DANGERFIELD,
JERRY LEWIS, STEVEN SEGAL, JOHNNY DEPP, MAT LEBLANC, ETC.
AND SAMUEL GOLDWYN WHO IS RELATED TO MATHEW PERRY,
GEORGE WALKER BUSH AND AGNES NIXON!!!

BIG TIME MGM SHARE HOLDERS!

 

[Seeker]

Operation London Bridge (also known by its code phrase London Bridge is Down) is the plan for what will happen in the United Kingdom after the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Charles launches Great Reset project | Daily Mail Online
https://www.dailymail.co.uk › femail › article-8384549

Queen Elizabeth II passed away on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (Mother Goddess, Queen of Heaven), & "Mary" was one of the personal names of the late Queen. Did that double rainbow over Buckingham Palace symbolize a new beginning and transformation (a "reset"?). In 1998, Tim Cohen wrote "The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea", naming him as Charles.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Queen Elizabeth II passed away on the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary

Dense typology, or mere coincidence? I wish I had a way to know for sure. But look at this:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567974425798098950

"Operation London Bridge is Down" is launched on the date commemorated by the nursery rhyme?

Also 3 years 33 weeks after the last blood moon in Scotland.

But contrary to Tim Cohen, @DonnieDarkened thinks that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. But then, he also seems to be hinting that Joe Biden might be the Antichrist too? Light Antichrist vs. Dark Antichrist? @DD came up with this pairing:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1566937881305817089

If anyone is up for keeping score among the various Antichrist candidates, Tim Cohen has made his 1998 book available for free download.

For me, it's enough to know that Great Britain also has a new Prime Minister who says that touching off global annihilation is part of her job description.

 

[Seeker]

But contrary to Tim Cohen, @DonnieDarkened thinks that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. But then, he also seems to be hinting that Joe Biden might be the Antichrist too? Light Antichrist vs. Dark Antichrist?

Richard seemed to think Donald Trump was the Beast from the Sea (Mar-a-Lago), so could Joe Biden be the Beast from the Land (born in Pennsylvania, "Penn's Woods")? King Charles certainly "trumps" them both with his Elite bloodline, after "biden" his time waiting to rule, but his son William would also have the bloodline of the immensely popular Princess Diana (another "goddess"), when he eventually becomes King. Harry, of course, would be King of America by then.

For me, it's enough to know that Great Britain also has a new Prime Minister who says that touching off global annihilation is part of her job description.

Funny how the last two British Prime Ministers hint at Donald Trump, as Boris Johnson looked like him, and now we have Liz "Truss", whose surname starts off sounding like "Trump" (besides having the late Queen's "Elizabeth" and "Mary" as her personal names)?

 

[Claude Badley]

So what? Mere coincidence of numbers (and letters)...

Dense typology, or mere coincidence? I wish I had a way to know for sure. But look at this:

...since I was born 111 years and 11 days after Nietzsche. And so what does that make me?

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Jerry Russell]

And so what does that make me?

Your point being?... that all these numerical coincidences and/or typology, never tell us anything we didn't know already?

It's convenient that you dropped by, Mr. Badley, because I have been trying to read through your General Science papers. And I have a clarifying question for you. In "The Doppler-Ensemble Theory of Light", see Figure 1:



I am willing to accept your reply, that light flashes will arrive at C and D simultaneously, with the flash at C being blue-shifted and the flash at D being red-shifted. But being the dolt that I am, I'm not sure what a true Einsteinian would say. Could you explain what the conventional answer to this question is, and why?

My further question: do you believe it's possible that the observer B could be traveling faster than the speed of light with respect to observer A? If so, how much red shift would you expect at observer D? Wouldn't the wavelength shift need to be greater than infinity?

The light emitter for Observer B must be some sort of apparatus, to be capable of emitting a timed flash of light simultaneous to the flash at A. Thus, it must be a relatively massive physical object; that is, with present technology, weighing at least a few micrograms, if not much more. Yet whenever we attempt to accelerate any particle with non-zero rest mass in an accelerator, we find that exponentially increasing amounts of energy are necessary for each increment of velocity increase, as the velocity of the particle approaches the speed of light. What sort of physical means could you imagine, to cause Observer B to be moving faster than light? How can we implement this thought experiment in the real world?

Or in other words, referring to your statement above:

...capitalism controls the world but faces no possibility of genuine expansion since it denies the possibility of outer space travel (basically due to Einstein's claim that nothing can travel faster than light...

Even if we all agree to become Fascists, how will that help?

BTW - nice looking farm. Is that a Douglas Fir in the centre picture or am I just pig-ignorant of North American conifers as well as being a fascist pig?

The tree is a Giant Sequoia, which seems to be thriving even though we're 500 miles north of its native habitat.

 

[Claude Badley]

I'm very busy at present as I am about to head off to the Pilbara (northern Western Australia) for 2 weeks, but can at least answer your first question.

It's convenient that you dropped by, Mr. Badley, because I have been trying to read through your General Science papers. And I have a clarifying question for you. In "The Doppler-Ensemble Theory of Light", see Figure 1:

View attachment 864

I am willing to accept your reply, that light flashes will arrive at C and D simultaneously, with the flash at C being blue-shifted and the flash at D being red-shifted. But being the dolt that I am, I'm not sure what a true Einsteinian would say. Could you explain what the conventional answer to this question is, and why?

A true Einsteinian would NOT accept this position at all, since he (very rarely she) would say that light is a particle so cannot be treated this way (even though light has a wavelength). The dialectical trickery inherent to Einstein and his followers prevents them from considering the bigger picture. Their reply would be something elaborate but ultimately derived from that of the Lost in Space robot i.e.: "That does not compute, Will Rob... er... Claude Badley" which means that they think of the world being based upon some gigantic mathematical plan absolutely controlled by deterministic laws supplemented by dialectical trickery such as "wave-particle dualism." (In practice this means that they consider every photon to be 'pre-labelled' with a wavelength, meaning that the universe has been predestined through such pre-labelling such that the red-shifted light from distant galaxies already had the redshift pre-labelled into each photon from the galaxy millions of years ago, this labelling giving the galaxy the appearance of age, but called by Einsteinians "the stretching of space[time]" - an absurd concept if ever there was one.)

I.e. the change in wavelength when moving towards or away from a light source explains away Einstein's fake shock-horror at the FACT that the observed speed of light from this light source does NOT change irrespective of observer motion. Rather, only the wavelength does - the Doppler Ensemble arising ineluctably from considering the issue objectively.

My further question: do you believe it's possible that the observer B could be traveling faster than the speed of light with respect to observer A? If so, how much red shift would you expect at observer D? Wouldn't the wavelength shift need to be greater than infinity?

Yes, observer B could travel faster than light relative to A. If receding from one another, the redshift will stretch to infinity so that A & B are mutually invisible. If B & A are approaching each other at greater than c, the wavelengths will be blueshifted to extremes relative to one another. Gamma rays are absorbed only by nuclei, but wavelengths even shorter than that will pass through atomic nuclei without being absorbed, hence if A & B are moving at say 2c or above when the pass one another, they too will be mutually invisible because the wavelength is shortened (blueshifted) to undetectability.

The redshift seen by observer D - at rest relative to A - from light from B traveling faster than light will thus be zero as the light has redshifted or blueshifted into invisibility (I.e. undetectability). To take it a step further - billions & more planets and galaxies* are passing through us right now, each of them travelling much faster than light in all directions relative to us on Earth and to each other. I.e. the universe has infinite matter content as well as being infinite in space and time.

When you finally understand this you will realize the true overwhelming power of the material universe. Instead, even Eric Lerner is only slowly approaching this fact as he still believes in SR. Perhaps I should refer him to this website and this article as he seems to be unaware of Joe too.

The tree is a Giant Sequoia, which seems to be thriving even though we're 500 miles north of its native habitat.

It certainly looked like one (Sequoiadendron giganteum), but your "500 miles" northward position had me wondering whether what applies to the coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) about its inability to grow much further north than Brookings Oregon might have a parallel in the Giant Sequoia. Glad to hear that's not so - but I should have realized that due to the fact that the Giant Sequoia readily grows in Australia in cold climates.

Yours faithfully
Claude B the F

*Indeed probably an infinite number.

 

[Seeker]

Dense typology, or mere coincidence?

It would appear that to the "Illuminati", certain days of the year are sacred, and to be observed with an occult ceremony, which is reflected outwardly in church festivals for the "masses" (pun intended). For the rest of us, these dates and numbers are just "mere coincidence", or gibberish, with the true secret meaning not meant to be known to in the first place.

...since I was born 111 years and 11 days after Nietzsche. And so what does that make me?

Since you chose Nietzsche as your "prototype", it makes you crazy since Jan. 14, 2000, as that date is 111 years and 11 days since he went insane.
Seriously, why don't you ask "1698code" and see what he says, as I was only having fun with this.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Since you chose Nietzsche as your "prototype", it makes you crazy since Jan. 14, 2000....

I wasn't going to say anything. But...

A true Einsteinian would NOT accept this position at all, since he (very rarely she) would say that light is a particle so cannot be treated this way (even though light has a wavelength).

Wouldn't a true Einsteinian say that light possesses wave-particle duality? Why would there be a conflict here?

Their reply would be something elaborate

Perhaps so. But would they not admit that the light flashes reach the observers C and D, and that the wavelengths of the flashes would be shifted? I am not sure whether they would say that the arrivals are simultaneous, or whether they would argue for some sort of time or length contraction causing some difference in timing between A->C vs. B->C. With my Einsteinian dolt hat on, my view is that whatever velocity A has with respect to B, the velocity of B with respect to A would be the same (although opposite directions), so any time dilation or length contraction would be mutual and therefore mutually cancelling. At this point I'm sure you'll say my arms are waving like the crazed robot. But it all continues to make perfect sense to me.

...billions & more planets and galaxies* are passing through us right now, each of them travelling much faster than light in all directions relative to us on Earth and to each other....

Danger Danger indeed, Will Robinson!! This seems like a much more severe predicament than posed by standard "Many Worlds" interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am willing to accept that these billions of galaxies passing through our midst are invisible. But what stops them from smashing into us at faster-than-light speed? What renders them not only invisible but non-corporeal?

I was surprised to read that a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists, showed that 58% agree with Many Worlds Interpretations. But of those, most favor the "unreal" version of the theory, as opposed to the "realistic" version. So it's OK to postulate Many Worlds as long as they're not real.

What about these billions of planets and galaxies that we can't see? Is there any other way to detect them? And if not, is it OK for me to adopt an "unreal" interpretation? I mean, it's totally cool to imagine that there are billions of galaxies passing through my living room, as long as you don't tell me they really exist.

 

[Claude Badley]

Wouldn't a true Einsteinian say that light possesses wave-particle duality? Why would there be a conflict here?

Wave-particle duality (wave-particle dualism) is not a physical entity but a method of argument otherwise called doublethink (Orwell), dialecticism or complementarity. It flips over the argument to whatever the Einsteinian can use to win the argument. It is NOT genuine science though it is scientism (a.k.a. - modern science).

But would the [Einsteinians] not admit that the light flashes reach the observers C and D, and that the wavelengths of the flashes would be shifted?

They would, reluctantly, but they want to prevent further otherwise inevitable deductions about the speed of light observed by each observer, replacing this with BS about the contraction of space as well an object's alleged length contraction (LC). Hence...

I am not sure whether they would say that the arrivals are simultaneous, or whether they would argue for some sort of time or length contraction causing some difference in timing between A->C vs. B->C.

That is exactly what they would do - both options - since they deny objectivity. Objectivity is NOT Popperian intersubjectivity but is inherent in space and time as it is in matter. Objectivity cannot be transferred or made secondary and dependent - contra Einstein and the philosophy of naturalism (which trivializes philosophy by claiming that everything "can be explained by science"). The ontological separation of matter, space and time is essential for genuine science so as to underpin objectivity - science is secondary to that in that it has to obey this ontological separation. Einstein and modern 'science' flatly deny this! (This is the same argument that separates Herbert Marcuse from Martin Heidegger - the question of being (ontology)).

With my Einsteinian dolt hat on, my view is that whatever velocity A has with respect to B, the velocity of B with respect to A would be the same (although opposite directions), so any time dilation or length contraction would be mutual and therefore mutually cancelling. At this point I'm sure you'll say my arms are waving like the crazed robot.

Just as I can cut conic sections thru your Einsteinian dolt hat - but wonder whether I have committed murder in that I'm unsure whether this 'hat' is part of your skull - because that is still the position of most scientists today! Clearly, major intellectual surgery is still required - to cut out the Einstein-tumor.

There is no mutual cancelling of time dilation (TD). What you have instead is daughter universes, one where A is TD'd relative to B, the other where B is TD'd relative to A. IOW Everett's Many Worlds Theory. Objectivity is lost entirely as each one passes into a merely subjective world where the ego is at velocity zero and everything else whizzes around it - every other object LC'd and TD'd in proportion to its velocity relative to the big ego. IOW Logocentrism with a vengeance.

As for objects mutually moving faster than light (FTL), only Einstein's BS says it is paradoxical.

Danger Danger indeed, Will Robinson!! This seems like a much more severe predicament than posed by standard "Many Worlds" interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am willing to accept that these billions of galaxies passing through our midst are invisible. But what stops them from smashing into us at faster-than-light speed? What renders them not only invisible but non-corporeal?

Moving substantially faster-than-light (>2c at least) the vortices comprising the matter in the two entities cannot interact with one another, so there can be no mutual detection nor collision. The belief that solid ponderous matter is primary (Newtonian presumption) as against fluid motion being primary (Bernoulli presumption) is the fundamental philosophy behind the Einstein prejudice. The Bernoullli presumption is the correct one - but needs better philosophical grounding.

I was surprised to read that a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists, showed that 58% agree with Many Worlds Interpretations. But of those, most favor the "unreal" version of the theory, as opposed to the "realistic" version. So it's OK to postulate Many Worlds as long as they're not real.

What about these billions of planets and galaxies that we can't see? Is there any other way to detect them? And if not, is it OK for me to adopt an "unreal" interpretation? I mean, it's totally cool to imagine that there are billions of galaxies passing through my living room, as long as you don't tell me they really exist.

You already accept that neutrinos are real - so are these faster-than-light (FTL) entities! It might seem a "severe predicament" but it is still objective and does NOT require nor lead to logical paradoxes (unlike SR which creates, as you implicitly admit, logical paradoxes hidden away by terminology such as "Many Worlds Theory").

But people have much to learn e.g. I don't remember a Lost in Space episode where Dr Zachary Smith actually puts a dunce's cap on the robot's head.

Yours faithfully
C B the F

 

[Jerry Russell]

...that is still the position of most scientists today!

So you are saying that I have correctly understood the position of most scientists today, which is that the flashes will appear simultaneously at observer stations C and D? And that this is exactly the same as your Doppler Shift Theory prediction?

Your theory also predicts that there are multiple universes full of objects moving faster than light -- but that these are undetectable from my frame of reference.

So where is there a testable prediction here?

You already accept that neutrinos are real...

Only by proxy, since I am here taking a dunce's advocate position. I haven't personally been introduced to any neutrinos.

Is it correct that neutrinos are generally inferred by observing their reaction products, such as the classic Cowan-Reines experiment which detected a signature consisting of two gamma rays (produced by positron-electron annihilation) followed by another gamma ray caused by neutron capture?

What makes you say that neutrinos are faster-than-light entities?

 

[Claude Badley]

So you are saying that I have correctly understood the position of most scientists today, which is that the flashes will appear simultaneously at observer stations C and D? And that this is exactly the same as your Doppler Shift Theory prediction?

No, you have misinterpreted my words about "still the position of most scientists today," which refer to the dunce's cap upon the heads of most scientists (or so-called scientists) today. The Einsteinian position is that the flash from B (moving wrt to A, C & D, all three mutually stationary) is NOT received at the same time at C & D due to TD, LC or whatever blather they can invent based upon those two false inferences.

Your theory also predicts that there are multiple universes full of objects moving faster than light -- but that these are undetectable from my frame of reference.

Multiple cosmoses, not multiple universes. There is but one universe but we live in a particular cosmos with mutual galactic recession throughout the visible portion. This would also apply to other cosmoses and their component galaxies moving FTL as they pass through us on Earth and each other.

So where is there a testable prediction here?

Some gamma ray bursters, repeating ones, not soft bursters, are actually light from cosmoses, far beyond our cosmos. Part of these cosmoses have a small portion whose velocity is -c<0>c, i.e. in the visible range of light emission with respect to (wrt) us on Earth. We can barely detect the gamma component. There are also two axes in the cosmos to be defined. One is a rotational axis (since our cosmos will be rotating wrt others); the other has already been discovered (here in Australia but I am not a part of it) but the discoverers have no idea what it means, poor rubes.

Only by proxy, since I am here taking a dunce's advocate position. I haven't personally been introduced to any neutrinos.

As Basil Fawlty might say: "Well read about them then before one of us dies."

Is it correct that neutrinos are generally inferred by observing their reaction products, such as the classic Cowan-Reines experiment which detected a signature consisting of two gamma rays (produced by positron-electron annihilation) followed by another gamma ray caused by neutron capture?

Gamma rays certainly decay into positrons and electrons - and vice versa. And gamma rays are emitted by neutron capture and also cause nuclei to emit protons and neutrons. Neutrinos are much lighter than neutrons - and we know they move at the speed of light due to supernova 1987a in the Greater (?) Magellanic Cloud, which brightened at the very moment 14 neutrinos hit the Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan.

Neutrinos travel at the speed of light (though there are fools who say neutrinos also have a rest mass so move slower).

What makes you say that neutrinos are faster-than-light entities?

Two neutrinos emitted in opposite directions are travelling at 2c relative to one another (just like photons from a light bulb)!

YF,
CB the F

 

[Jerry Russell]

The Einsteinian position is that the flash from B (moving wrt to A, C & D, all three mutually stationary) is NOT received at the same time at C & D due to TD, LC or whatever blather they can invent based upon those two false inferences.

Fascinating. No matter how hard I try, I am not able to wrap my mind into this allegedly Einsteinian pretzel. To wit...

Two neutrinos emitted in opposite directions are travelling at 2c relative to one another (just like photons from a light bulb)!

In the scenario described above, if the "light bulb" is the emitter at B, and two photons are emitted simultaneously: clearly the photon heading to the left towards C is traveling at the speed of light with respect to B. (Or of course, the same scenario would apply if B is a neutrino source.)

Conversely, viewed from the photon, the light bulb is headed to its right, also at the speed of light. But in the frame of reference in which the photon is stationary, all lengths in the light bulb frame of reference ("B") are compressed to zero in the limit, and time is dilated to a complete standstill. So, the photon emitted towards the right towards D must appear from the other photon's viewpoint as if it is moving at exactly the same speed as the light bulb from which it was emitted.

And although that photon is moving away from the light bulb at the speed of light (from the point of view of the bulb itself), an observer at the leftward photon must see both the light bulb and the other photon moving away at exactly the speed of light, neither faster nor slower, and thus the photon will never be seen to leave the light bulb at all.

So far so good.

If we switch things up and view the situation from the rightward-heading photon, both the light bulb and the leftward photon should be seen headed towards C at the speed of light. Surely no Einsteinian would disagree?

So by symmetry, it seems to me that the photon traveling to the left, as viewed from the photon travelling to the right, should reach observer C at the exact same time as the photon traveling to the right reaches D, as viewed from the one headed left.

And for that matter, I don't see how any Einsteinian could deny that the light bulb itself should smash into observers C and D at the exact same time, and simultaneously with the two respective photons. And that should be the case, regardless of the velocity of B with respect to A, C and D. But I digress.

For documentary reference, do you happen to know of any genuine professionally certified Einsteinian who has addressed this question in print?

You have got my arms flailing like a crazed robot, to be sure.

Some gamma ray bursters, repeating ones, not soft bursters, are actually light from cosmoses, far beyond our cosmos.

By "Gamma Ray Bursters" you mean objects visible in the night sky to telescopes sensitive to gamma rays? This is getting more interesting by the minute. It does seem that Badleyans live in a more exciting universe than boring old Einsteinians.

As Basil Fawlty might say: "Well read about them then before one of us dies."

I didn't want to admit that I was reading the Wikipedia article, and Johnson & Tegen "an overview of the neutrino" linked from there, and none of it convinced me that these things really exist. Not that I'm saying they don't, but I'm keeping my dunce hat on.

 

[Jerry Russell]

And for that matter, I don't see how any Einsteinian could deny that the light bulb itself should smash into observers C and D at the exact same time, and simultaneously with the two respective photons. And that should be the case, regardless of the velocity of B with respect to A, C and D. But I digress.

I'm leaving this in because I find it amusing, but here's an explanation. Viewed from the left photon's frame, the departure of the right photon carries away a minuscule amount of momentum from the light bulb, slowing it down to a tiny fractional speed slower than the speed of light. Similarly and symmetrically, the left photon carries away momentum from the light source viewed from the right photon frame. So the photons can reach locations C and D while the bulb only gets to one or the other of those observers, at a later time.

Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense.

 

[Claude Badley]

Fascinating. No matter how hard I try, I am not able to wrap my mind into this allegedly Einsteinian pretzel. To wit... [the two neutrinos traveling in opposite directions at 2c wrt each other]
In the scenario described above, if the "light bulb" is the emitter at B, and two photons are emitted simultaneously: clearly the photon heading to the left towards C is traveling at the speed of light with respect to B. (Or of course, the same scenario would apply if B is a neutrino source.)

The issue does NOT apply in the same way with neutrinos as they are spin-1/2 not spin-1 particles. Hence there is no fundamental wavelength Doppler issue as with protons.

Conversely, viewed from the photon, the light bulb is headed to its right, also at the speed of light. But in the frame of reference in which the photon is stationary, all lengths in the light bulb frame of reference ("B") are compressed to zero in the limit, and time is dilated to a complete standstill. So, the photon emitted towards the right towards D must appear from the other photon's viewpoint as if it is moving at exactly the same speed as the light bulb from which it was emitted.

This claim is wrong on many levels due to adopting Einsteinian presumptions. One does not have "a frame of reference in which the photon is stationary"; they are always observed moving at c, since it is the wavelength not the speed which changes with observer motion. Nor are "lengths... compressed to zero" as this too invokes the LC imposture, likewise "time... dilated to a standstill" is the TD imposture. You are thus arguing with meaningless words and not considering the differential motion of the infinite Doppler ensemble comprising EACH photon.

One can have photons moving away in all directions from a light-bulb however.

And although that photon is moving away from the light bulb at the speed of light (from the point of view of the bulb itself), an observer at the leftward photon must see both the light bulb and the other photon moving away at exactly the speed of light, neither faster nor slower, and thus the photon will never be seen to leave the light bulb at all.

However the later statement in red is wrong. Observers of the "leftward photon" from B see light at c moving from B but blueshifted. They do not see the light receding from B faster than light in the opposite direction. Hence the claim that "the photon will never be seen (or inferred) to leave the light bulb at all" is a nonsense statement based upon Einsteinian nonsense.

So far so good.

If we switch things up and view the situation from the rightward-heading photon, both the light bulb and the leftward photon should be seen headed towards C at the speed of light. Surely no Einsteinian would disagree?

No, we only infer what might happen - and the Einsteinians have it wrong, since Dingle demands experimental evidence, not mathematical theorizing.

So by symmetry, it seems to me that the photon traveling to the left, as viewed from the photon travelling to the right, should reach observer C at the exact same time as the photon traveling to the right reaches D, as viewed from the one headed left.

That is correct - but trivial. What matters is the wavelength, blueshifted when seen C, redshifted when seen by D.

The question of the light-bulbs themselves smashing into observers...

And for that matter, I don't see how any Einsteinian could deny that the light bulb itself should smash into observers C and D at the exact same time, and simultaneously with the two respective photons. And that should be the case, regardless of the velocity of B with respect to A, C and D. But I digress.

...is a mere digression.

For documentary reference, do you happen to know of any genuine professionally certified Einsteinian who has addressed this question in print?

You have got my arms flailing like a crazed robot, to be sure.

No I don't - and they won't address the issue because they cannot answer the question. When you read Einstein's original 1905 article you will see that Einstein treats the Doppler Effect entirely mathematically in section 7, treating the Doppler question as entirely subordinate rather than the primary issue to be dealt with when considering the constant observed speed of light.

By "Gamma Ray Bursters" you mean objects visible in the night sky to telescopes sensitive to gamma rays? This is getting more interesting by the minute. It does seem that Badleyans live in a more exciting universe than boring old Einsteinians.

Yes, but only some of the Gamma Ray Bursters (GRB). Otherwise, GRBs not of extra-cosmic origin (i.e. those within our cosmos) cannot be too far from the Milky Way else they would be redshifted into soft gamma rays and X-rays by galactic recession!

No problem with having to read Wikipedia articles - I do too. No one is an expert on everything.

I didn't want to admit that I was reading the Wikipedia article, and Johnson & Tegen "an overview of the neutrino" linked from there, and none of it convinced me that these things really exist. Not that I'm saying they don't, but I'm keeping my dunce hat on.

Neutrinos were predicted by Wolfgang Pauli to explain the beta-emission of electrons - why some were powerful and others weak but with no evidence of recoil in the emitting atoms. His claim was proven in 1957 when neutrinos were found emitted by nuclear reactors. To get a better understanding you will have to read about spin conservation in particle physics - rather than me lecture you.

Yours faithfully
C B the F