Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.


"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%SdFf.747410$x96.709993@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| Space*** wrote:
| > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:jrdFf.747377$x96.366819@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | What people find compelling about SR is that observation agree
| > | with its predictions and that it is a valuable tool in exploring
| > | many phenomena in the universe and that it is important in some
| > | engineering projects.
| >
| > Sam,
| > you seem to have some complex that thinks I do not think SR makes
| > predictions correctly using it's math and such.
| > I have never ever said it does not do such.
| > Never!
|
| And those prediction include time dilation, mass increase and length
| contraction. I'm glad to see space*** accepting the SR predictions!
| Ya Hoo!

yes,
time dilation is correctly predicted by SR.
in reality it is simply a clock malfunction that SR can predict
really well.
mass increase as in relative mass is simple and true for
energy imparted. but actual rest mass never increases.
and length contraction is simply a light speed illusion
all predictable using SR.
:)


.

Loading