Re: A little challenge for relativists.

O'Harry wrote:

> "shuba" <tim.shuba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> > The point is that an instantaneous signal in Galilean relativity
> > would be instantaneous in all frames, independent of the speed of
> > the source. You would be better off studying the mathematics of
> > relativty, rather than making more uninformed and disingenuous
> > comments based on your poor understanding.
>
> You would be better of studying physics: light is not instantaneous in
> *Newtonian* mechanics.

Well it certainly didn't you long to highlight your poor
understanding. No, light is not instantaneous in Newtonian
mechanics, nor does that idiotic conclusion follow from any
statement I wrote. Look, my initial statement was, as I said,
quite uncontraversial and solidly backed up by the mathematics
that I linked to. You can study it or ignore it.

> Your "The Principle of Relativity leads to an invariant speed c", sounds
> quite different from "It also came from Maxwell's equations" and "his
> (implicit) assumption that Maxwell's equations are a law of physics accounts
> for it completely".

They're completely compatible. Go back and read my FULL initial
statement, if you care to. You'll find that the statements about
Maxwell's equations do in fact satisfy the condition that the
speed of light is exactly equal to the invariant speed c.

Kennaugh is completely full of ***. I knew he wouldn't be able
to understand the simple concept I presented, since he has never
once to my knowledge based any argument on a solid mathematical
foundation. His "challenge" can be answered in many ways, none
of which he will accept, because he is an innumerate crackpot.


---Tim Shuba---
.