🚀 go-pugleaf

"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message 
news:gi1265lrg4f8uoaic0r011r2on0kv3mrdn@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:14:52 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
>>news:n8e06593v20oarrhtmodv4bd6quj18m6is@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:52:35 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>The speed of separation of the light from the source, as seen from the
>>non-rotating frame of reference, is c+v and c-v.
>
> 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?

> 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.

>>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.