🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 8 May 2010 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>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:

>>
>> >> 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.

OWLS from a moving source has never been measured.

>> 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.

Seto has been quite right about this one all along...as anyone with any
intelligence should know....but that doesnt include you....

>> 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.
>>
>>
>>


Henry Wilson...

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