🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:52:35 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
>news:143065ptd6hndvnojkif3nrmva802mpmtd@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:12:41 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"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:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about SR.
>
>Stop lying Henry
>
>> According to SR, the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source.
>
>Yeup
>
>> Have a look at the SR analysis.
>
>I have .. you obviously don't understand it, or you would not be making 
>false claims about it.  Well. if you were an honest person you wouldn't. 
>However, it is well known that you are a liar.
>
>> How does that happen?
>
>I've explained it to you before, more than once, as have others.  You'll 
>only lie about it if I explain it again.

So you agree that the rays move at c+v and c-v wrt the source. How would those
rays compare with two others that moved at c wrt the source...which is what
light normally does?

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

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