Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)


"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:f9gd45dhu6nue6mduo5ldhird33eiut7io@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:21:34 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


"Henry Wilson, DSc" <hw@..> wrote in message
news:r09d459u0mreghgk5udcchd7i60qt0sjud@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:49:31 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


I wish to retract that statement and replace it with "Androcles IS
certainly
raving mad and is rarely correct".

I have respect for old Androcles but he is wrong on this occasion.
Worryingly so.


You'll eat those words when you wake up. It usually takes about a
year before Wilson realises he is wrong, but the gif is clear enough.
See if you can get there quicker than Wilson.
I don't mind him teasing, I know just how thick he is.

Let me explain. You are describing a 'moving oscillator' not a
'traveling
wave'. The two situations are distinctly different.

Yep. Photons are moving oscillators.

This is true, ...and we can learn a lot about them from their ballistic
behavior. They appear to also possess an INTRINSIC wavelength

You can stop right there and make up your fuckin' stupid mind.

"A pure oscillator, such as a spinning wheel, has no natural wavelength in
any
frame. " - Wilson.
news:r09d459u0mreghgk5udcchd7i60qt0sjud@xxxxxxx





.

Quantcast