🚀 go-pugleaf

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:zteHi.99430$Vk6.75649@newsfe07.phx...
: Dear JanPB:
:
: "JanPB" <filmart@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:1189963511.109963.323880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > On Sep 16, 7:00 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > [snip idiocies]
: >
: >> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909081v7.pdf
: >> Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of
: >> modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light.
: >> Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on
: >> which special relativity is based. So far, however, little
: >> attention has been paid to the status of this postulate
: >> when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the
: >> constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence
: >> of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate.
: >
: > This doesn't seem right. The speed of light constancy
: > doesn't automatically follow from the first postulate
: > unless one adds the extra assumption of no aether.
: > The first postulate alone is not enough as one could
: > obviously set up a theory with aether, the first
: > postulate, and Maxwell's equations, all together in a
: > happy (logical but not physical) family.
: >
: > This happy family would not be SR and would not
: > match experimental results but its very existence
: > as a possible logical corollary disproves Petkov's
: > claim. Comments?
:
: The constancy of the speed of light follows from Maxwell, Maxwell
: formulated his "laws of physics" with an aether, and the aether
: "fell out" in the derivation.  So if Maxwell's relations qualify
: as laws of physics under postulate 1, then postulate 2 is
: superfluous.
:
: David A. Smith

Dar Smiffy,
 "It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the 
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do 
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." -- Albert Einstein.
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in 
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

That's two dead parrots and yours makes three.
 Squawk, squawk, squawk.
--

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

 http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

"Neither [frame] is stationary, which is your problem." -- Blind
"I'm not a troll" Poe.
Ref: news:1189468758.944626.39450@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com



'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' -- 
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: news:1188363019.673281.67710@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
  http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

 "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if  Eidgen�ssische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying bastards will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely 
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.