🚀 go-pugleaf

Androcles wrote:
> "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message
> news:fpshf4hs9tnjuisp2eqivdigh7pse2hbvk@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 18:12:42 +0100, "Androcles"
>> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>
>>> "Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>>> news:48f87e8b$0$196$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
>>>>> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
>>>>> p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
>>>>> principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
>>>>> be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
>>>>> a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
>>>>> had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
>>>>> one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
>>>>> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
>>>>> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
>>>>> emitting it.
>>>> Let me concentrate on the last one first.
>>>>
>>>> You can compare it to sound.
>>>
>>> Let me concentrate on the first one first.
>>> NO YOU CANNOT! Light, sound and thrown stones do not compare
>>> in any way whatosover.
>>>
>> No more ballistic light, Andro?
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
>> w.
> 
> Wabbie,  I have never changed my mind; glad to see you have
> paid attention.  You can NOT compare light to sound. 

For the sake of argument, you can even compare a wave to a crowd of 
football supporters.

But you do not do arguments.

We already knew that.

Uwe Hayek.



-- 
Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi�] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.