Re: c = constant

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:53:23 -0000, "Androcles"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Androcles wrote:
>> > "Brian Kennelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >>Androcles wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >>>There are three.
>> >>
>> >>Three?
>> >
>> > Yes, three.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>>I will accept one of them, the PoR.
>> >>>The second isn't a postulate, is testable. I want it tested before you
>> >
>> > can
>> >
>> >>>go on to show length contraction.
>> >>
>> >>That light speed is independent of the source is well verified, as are
>> >>the deductions from that principle.
>> >
>> > Assertion carries no weight. Prove your claim.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>>The third is an assumption, and Einstein say it is an assumption.
>> >>>The burden of proof is now with you.
>> >>
>> >>I think your are confusing Einstein's statement of the second postulate
>> >>with a new assumption.
>> >
>> > Am I?
>> > "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
>> > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
>empty
>> > space."
>> > On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905 A.Einstein.
>> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>> >
>> That is a statement of the second postulate, not a third.
>>
>> > That's not my new assumption.
>> > It shows up in the equation
>> > 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
>tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
>> > and the 1/2 is an assumption.
>> > That makes 3 postulates, in my book.
>> If your book allows 1+1=3, then it is no surprise that you cannot
>> understand the 1/2, which is simply a statement that light travels equal
>> distances in equal times.
>Quit posting twice, it only makes you twice the idiot.
>Androcles
>
>
I think this fellow is a genuine troll. Nobody can be as dumb as this without
doing it deliberately.

Henri Wilson. 
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm