Re: c = constant

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:23:07 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>HenriWilson wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:11:31 -0700, Brian Kennelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>HenriWilson wrote:
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>>>>Now, how do you get from there to the statement that the length of the 
>>>>>rod does not depend on its velocity?  (Note that there are no observers 
>>>>>who belong to both groups 2 & 3, so you cannot claim a contradiction).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, your messages are starting to become quite incoherent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I asked a simple question.  You are missing a few steps in your 
>>>argument.  We agree up to the statements listed, but I do not know how 
>>>you get from there to your conclusion that length is invariant.
>>>
>>>Are you going to admit that you cannot complete your argument without 
>>>making additional assumptions?
>> 
>> 
>> I have proved that physical properties do not depend on velocity in a way that
>> a five year old kid would understand.
>> 
>
>You have not completed the argument that lengths are not dependent on 
>velocity.  You might fool a five year old, but anyone with at least a 
>high school education should be able to see that you left out some steps.
>
>Can you complete the argument?

Do you really believe a rod changes its physical length every time a
differently moving observer looks at it?

You obviously don't understand what the principle of relativity involves. You
are an aetherian.
>
>


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