🚀 go-pugleaf

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.