Einstein akbar


"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eq9ob3020p4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Henri Wilson says...

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate,
and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently
irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite speed c which is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body. "

Note this sentence, Henri. If you have difficulty understanding what
it means, you may need to consult a primer.

Draper, you might be quite good at copying text but you apparently don't
understand what you copy.

Your statement above clearly says light moves at c wrt its source.

Henri, it clearly says no such thing. It says that the speed is
*independent* of the motion of the emitting body. It didn't
say anything about motion with respect to its source.


Ok, so it is not physics and the "apparently irreconcilable" becomes
The Glaringly Obvious Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity 15 years later.


"there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo "

When A meets B, B meets A at some other time.



Aha! I see your problem! You are under the impression that it means,
"light travels at c wrt ABSOLUTE space".

No, it doesn't say that, either. Nowhere in that passage does it
mention absolute space.

You are all very good at saying what things are not but that's a
pointless and unproductive argument.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

Carry on saying "No", you'll not not get absolutely NOwhere.
The PoR is wrong, Copernicus was wrong, Galileo was wrong,
the Earth is the centre of the Universe, only the Church is right
and Einstein is it's profit. Einstein akbar, bring back Ptolemy.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... From this postulate was directly derived the Lorentz ... a greater time elapsed between two events than a clock ... or absolute motion through space, ... I don't see how absolute motion is the *only* possible ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation disappears
    ... Quote/ The broad notion is that "mass there influences inertia here". ... However, because this principle is so vague, many distinct ... these bodies is in motion. ... Note that the "Principle of Relativity" is DEFINED as relative motion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation disappears
    ... However, because this principle is so vague, many distinct ... the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. ... these bodies is in motion. ... Note that the "Principle of Relativity" is DEFINED as relative motion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation disappears
    ... However, because this principle is so vague, many distinct ... the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. ... these bodies is in motion. ... Note that the "Principle of Relativity" is DEFINED as relative ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation disappears
    ... However, because this principle is so vague, many distinct ... the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. ... these bodies is in motion. ... Note that the "Principle of Relativity" is DEFINED as relative motion, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)