🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:25:52 +1000, "Whoever" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"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:
>>

>>>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?

Hahahahahahhahahhahahaaha!
Is that the best you can do?
Is this your admission of defeat?

>> 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?
Hahahahahahhahahahahahaha!...plain aether theory...

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?

>>>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.
 


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

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