🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 8, 5:04 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:20:43 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@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.

It's been measured enough, and the light speed isotropy from moving
sources has been measured a number of times.

> Secondly, as Seto has explained incessantly, the LTs cause light speed to
> always be measured as c.

Seto doesn't have the foggiest idea what relativity says, and if you
are using him as your authority on this matter, then I think I see the
source of your problem.

> Since they don't exist, light speed is NOT always c.

The LTs are equations you write on a piece of paper. In so doing, the
LTs exist. Are you claiming that if you burn the paper on which the
LTs are written, then light speed suddenly becomes variable?

> 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.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that Maxwell firmly believed in an absolute
aether frame.
Are you having trouble concentrating.

>
> In future, I wont waste time replying to brainwashed morons.
>
> Henry Wilson...
>
> .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.