🚀 go-pugleaf

"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. Nor can
you compare it to mass. But then, you can't compare thrown stones
to sound either.
So what are you asking?