🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 7 May 2010 05:38:45 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 6, 5:31�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 May 2010 15:18:38 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 6, 5:13�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:

>> >You mean the equations you said don't work?
>>
>> I didn't say the equations didn't work. They produce a value for the universal
>> constant known as c.
>
>You said the equations demand an absolute reference frame that doesn't
>exist. In science, that would be a very strong indicator that they
>don't work.
>
>>
>> To do that, they rely on measured values of 'fields' set up in an apparatus.
>>
>> >Or do you mean that the absolute reference frame is the reference
>> >frame of the fields in the apparatus used?
>> >You're beginning to babble like Mitch.
>> >He eats on the curb and sleeps in a box. You?
>>
>> Diaper, your logical ability is sadly lacking. It is the interpretation of
>> Maxwell's equations that is wrong.
>
>That old saw. Maxwell's equations are nothing but shorthand for a
>serious of English sentences that would take a great number of words
>to say with the same precision that the algebraic notation says in
>compact form. When you read the equation, all of those terms have been
>defined and their conceptual meaning already established. Thus the
>interpretation is the conceptual framework that is already written
>down before the equations are.

Maxwell's equations provide a value for the speed of lightin a medium. That
speed is relative to the medium...and hte apparatys used to measure the two
paameters.

ALL velocities are relative by definition....and that includes light.

>> >> >> Maxwell's derivation of the universal constant 'c' is legitimate....and c just


Henry Wilson...

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