🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 9, 5:00 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2010 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@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.

Not true. Here is you opportunity to say "Well, even if it has, I
don't believe the results." This should be sufficient for you to
perpetuate your lie that it's never been measured at all.

>
> >> 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.