On Apr 27, 8:27*am, "Androcles" wrote:
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Mike" wrote in message

...
On Apr 27, 2:16 am, "Androcles" wrote:





This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Alen" wrote in message

...
On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Nice read:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1162

"I asked Steve Carlip at the University of California at Davis to explain
this statement to me. "It makes no sense at all," he said. "Van Flandern
seems to have invented a free parameter where none exists.- John Farrell..

I ask John Farrell at Cosmos Magazine to explain this statement to me:
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. " -
Einstein.

[misplaced comment moved to end of post]

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" for each journey is the same ?

Where's your answer to my question?


He it is again because you have (intentionally) misplaced it.

He said actually: "We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B
time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the
latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the
``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. "

So he says the opposite than you think he says. He says that -- what
you say he says--- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common
"time" for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean
transformations.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one pal.


Mike






It makes no sense at all, Einstein seems to have invented a free parameter
where none exists.
"Scientific method" ? Hahahaha!
John Farrell is a prejudiced journalist, not a mathematician or scientist.