🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
news:v1bv5518gnic5melr2l3s20s27qqshm992@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:12:54 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:5b0cf384-aeb7-4698-85f8-a1d15761bbf2@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Lies:
>>>
>>> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
>>> "In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
>>> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed that the
>>> speed of light is always the same (now known to be 186,282 miles per
>>> second) relative to stationary observers as well as moving ones.
>>
>>That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that
>>conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation.  What 
>>it
>>did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
>>
>>> Nothing but light has this property: if you are approaching a car
>>> that's moving 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the
>>> approaching car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. Not so with
>>> light. If you are traveling at the speed of light, designated c,
>>> toward a light beam moving directly toward you, it appears to be
>>> approaching at c, not 2c."
>>>
>>> Truth:
>>>
>>> In their namesake experiment, Albert Michelson (a physicist who won
>>> the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward Morley (a chemist) showed (without
>>> knowing it) that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light
>>> source v in accordance with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
>>> emission theory of light.
>>
>>That's not a valid summary .. their experiment is consistent with that
>>conclusion, but it did not show that that was the only explanation.  What 
>>it
>>did rule out was an absolute fixed ether.
>>
>>> If you are approaching a car that's moving
>>> 30 miles per hour, and you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching
>>> car appears to be coming at you at 60 mph. So with light. If you are
>>> traveling at the speed of light, designated c where c is the speed of
>>> light relative to the light source, toward a light beam moving
>>> directly toward you, it appears to be approaching at 2c.
>>
>>Shame that that is refuted by Sagnac.
>
> Sagnac fully supports BaTh.

Stop lying Henry

> It plainly refutes SR

Stop lying Henry

> because its analysis requires
> that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.

You don't understand the anlaysis .. and you get yours totally wrong

> If you cannot understand simple diagrams that is not my fault.

It is your fault that you don't understand,, because it has been explained 
to you countless times

Stop lying Henry .. and a fraudster deliberately trying to fool people into 
believing your theory is correct.  Get over it .. you're flogging a dead 
horse.