Re: A little challenge for relativists.


Androcles wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1130856516.566386.260810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "shuba" <tim.shuba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-0E8A1F.06162301112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | O'Harry wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > I don't think that the PoR in
> | > | > itself can lead to an invariant speed (it didn't in the time of Newton), for
> | > | > that at least one additional assumption is needed.
> | > |
> | > | In the case of Galilean Relativity, the invariant speed c is
> | > | infinite,
> | >
> | > BULL***! In Galilean relativity light leaves the source
> | > at a speed of 300,000km/sec.
> | > In SR it leaves the observer and travels to the source first,
> | > reflects and then comes back to the observer.
> | > "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
> | > Ref http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/.
> | > Androcles.
> |
> | Androcles is reduced to making more and more ridiculous statements,
> | either because he no longer cares what he writes down or because he is
> | gradually losing his grip on reality.
> |
> | PD
> Not my fault you can't read, Phuckwit Cuckoo. I've given the reference.
> Androcles.

Funny... I see nowhere in that reference that light leaves the
observer, travels to the source, and then comes back to the observer.

Babble, foam, splutter.

PD

.

Loading