🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:20:43 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 7, 4:27�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 05:42:03 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 6, 10:58�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:18:20 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>

>> >> >> Maxwell's equations require an absolute rest frame. There is none.
>>
>> >> >Wrong, they do not require an absolute rest frame and they fail to be
>> >> >invariant under a Galilean transformation, so they are NOT EXPECTED to
>> >> >require an absolute rest frame.
>>
>> >> All speeds MUST BE specified relative to a frame.
>>
>> >Yes, this is true. This does NOT mean that all speeds change value
>> >when referred to a different frame.
>>
>> The idea that light speed is always measured as being c is a direct consequence
>> of Lorentz's 'contraction' idea.
>
>No, you've got cart before the horse. Lorentz contraction is a direct
>consequence of light speed always being measured as being c. What you
>said is exactly backwards.


You are wrong on several counts.
Firstly OWLS has rarely been measured at all, let alone from a moving source.
Secondly, as Seto has explained incessantly, the LTs cause light speed to
always be measured as c. Since they don't exist, light speed is NOT always c.
It is obvioulsy c+v, as clearly proved by examining variable star curves. 


>>
>> >> Maxwell used the absolute aether frame, in which he firmly believed.
>>
>> >No, he didn't. He thought so at first, and then recanted. Does that
>> >sound like firm belief to you?
>
>Does it Henry? Answering a direct question with a nonresponsive answer
>is passive-aggressive behavior.

all speeds require a reference frame.

In future, I wont waste time replying to brainwashed morons.

Henry Wilson...

.......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.