🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:13:38 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
>news:dmk4659jif1qvfj576mce8rnks1lkc0eud@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:25:52 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> OK, now tell me how those two rays compare compare with two that are
>>>> emitted at
>>>> c relative to the source.
>>>
>>>They are the same two rays regardless.  You do realize this don't you?
>>
>> Hahahahahahhahahhahahaaha!
>> Is that the best you can do?
>> Is this your admission of defeat?
>
>I'm not defeated by lies.  But it is showing you are a fool by saying there 
>are four rays involved.
>
>>>> You DO know that light normally moves at c wrt its
>>>> soruce, I presume.
>>>
>>>In an inertial frame of reference where the source is at rest (and remains
>>>at rest), yes.  But with a rotating source, there is no inertial frame of
>>>reference where the source remains at rest, because it is accelerating.
>>
>> speeds of those pulses?
>
>What pulses?
>
>> Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha!...plain aether theory...
>
>No aether invovled.  Stop your lies
>
>> Answer this.
>> S->a----------------------------------------P1------P2-------P3
>>
>> S is an accelerating source that periodically emits pulses of light.
>> How would you quantify the speeds of those pulses?
>
>They would be at c relative to every inertial frame of reference.  S is not 
>an inertial frame.  AS S is accelerating, and the pulses are not, the rate 
>of separation of the pulses from S would vary.

Hahahahahhahaha! THANK YOU DEAR LADY.
YOU HAVE NOW FULLY APPROVED THE BATH VARIABLE STAR THEORY, BASED ENTIRELY ON
THOSE VARIABLE SEPARATION RATES.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 

>>>>>That is what SR says
>>>>>happens.  This has been explained to you countless times.  You're just a
>>>>>sad
>>>>>little lying troll.  Truly pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> You're a typical relativist wimp....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>>>> Just
>>>> defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>>
>> You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute.
>> Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.
>
>You're a typical arrogant crackpot ....nothing intelligent to contribute. 
>Just defending your religion with inane nonsense.

YOU HAVE JUST APPROVED MY WHOLE THEORY, DEAR LADY....WHY ARE YOU STILL CALLING
ME A CRACKPOT? 

Hahahahhahahhahahahahhahaa! 


Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...