🚀 go-pugleaf

"Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message 
news:48f9c9e8$0$185$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> 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.

For the sake of argument, you can compare all the waves you like,
light travels in beams as streams of photons and sound does not.
But you are crackpot that likes to argue against observation.
We already knew that.