Re: Basics series proposed
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: Richard Schultz: "Re: What if the higgs don't exist...."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:28:42 +0200
Jim Greenfield wrote:
[snip]
> DHR's will tell you without blinking, that c has been "proved" to be
> source independent "millions of times".
Wrong. They will tell you that there are a million pieces of *evidence*
for that.
> Under strong questioning, the
> nearest they'll conceed is some arbitrary assumptions about data from
> "binary stars".
Liar. Many other arguments have already been presented to you here, and
even the argument using binary stars has no "arbitrary assumptions" in it.
> So their first statement is a big lie!
No, it's you who is lying here.
> Races between
> photons, the REAL way to prove whether both are travelling at the same
> velocity, has NEVER been done.
What has been done is looking at the radiation emitted by particles
which moves with great speeds in the lab. Hint: the result was that the
speed of that radiation was c wrt to the lab - *not* wrt to the
particles by which it was emitted.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Richard Schultz: "Re: What if the higgs don't exist...."
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- In reply to: Jim Greenfield: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
