🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
news:eh8765993q7pikm2nhmuuc7hd5s78jv014@4ax.com...
> 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!

So your theory is special relativity now, and not ballistic then?  Then I 
agree

>>>>>>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!

So your theory is special relativity now, and not ballistic then?  Then I 
agree