Re: Imagine


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1117925965.059533.257450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
| destiny wrote:
| > i waste my time with you
| >
| > its sad for a guy having a phd trying to
| > play smart avoiding to answer simple questions
| >
| > good bye
|
| I thought you'd say something like that...
|
| PD
|

Well it is to some extent true as you don't seem to have addressed except
perhaps by mantra the fact that SS3 is in fact perhaps breaking the rules of
SR by going at 1.5 c as far as the information passed back to SS1 is
concerned. If you could except that c was with referenced to a given
dielectric then the problem could be addressed coherently perhaps but by
blinding yourself to some facts you appear to be avoiding the issue. At the
moment I am going though AE's E of MB to try and see how this idea that SR
can be coherent without a dielectric referenced to the frames comes about
etc. The problem seems that in one case you accept that c is constant in any
inertial frame but seem unable to see that this implies unless contraction
and dilation are introduced against a dielectric background that the sol
will be greater than c. So I will be back after I hope after reading and
digestion. You should have realised by now that I.m not trolling just
digging for facts so your refusal to answer me can only be construed as
either not having the answers or not being willing to compromise your
mantra.
--
rD *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)


.