Re: SR's Basic Mistake.

On May 11, 8:49 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:30:18 -0800, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Henry Wilson, DSc wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2009 06:10:41 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 10, 7:41 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:05:19 -0700 (PDT), G <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 10, 2:54 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"G" <gehan.ameresek...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Let me give you an example.
Rene Descartes, French mathematician and philosopher, said:
"I think, therefore I am".
With that simple statement he PROVED he existed and it is
self-evident. If he thought, then he had to exist to be able to think.
It is obvious, of course, but he found a way to clearly state the
obvious.
Note that things can exist without them thinking, but they cannot
think without existing.

As an exercise, see if you can state the principle of relativity
(in words or algebraically) so that you are stating the obvious.
It is not an easy thing to do, but don't ignore it!
If you understand it then you can say what it is.  If you can't
say what it is then you don't understand it.
Then we'll see if we are progressing or not.

The principle of relativity is that light is always measured as
traveling at velocity c .

No..That's Einstein's second postulate. It directly conflicts with the PoR
which implies that ALL velocities are frame dependent.

The PoR makes NO such implications. Wherever did you get the idea that
it does?

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to detoxify you mind

In other words, ralph cannot back up his stupid statement and is
trying to run and hide.

The PoR says that all speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

It says no such thing, Henri. Where on earth did you get that idea?
.

Loading