🚀 go-pugleaf

"Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message 
news:48fa13b6$0$195$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "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.
>
> That's correct. But as to their speed, you can compare them sound. As 
> sound always travels at mach1

Nonsense.
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler.gif
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/doppler2.gif
You are crackpot that likes to argue against observation.  We already knew 
that.