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

"Mike" wrote in message
...
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.

"cannot be defined at all" after Newton defined it is a rather stupid lie.

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year." -- Sir Isaac Newton -- Principia.

If you cannot comprehend that you have a comprehension problem, a huge
one, cretin; and I'm not your pal, you are hugely mistaken there too.

So let's see...
tau((x-vt)/(c-v)) = tau((x-vt)/(c+v)) is a linear function according to you,
is it?
If you can comprehend that you have a dead brain, moron.