🚀 go-pugleaf

"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:
>
>>"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?

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.

>>>>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.