On Apr 27, 2:45�am, Mike wrote:
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.

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 --- cannot be astablished unless one defines a common "time"
for A and B, something that is true only in Galilean transformations.

Mike
The Galilean transformation equations can be applied in any context.
All it means is that a clock in the stationary frame of reference
represents the equation t'=t. Any clocks running at some other rate,
including cesium clocks in the moving frame of reference, have to be
represented by some other variable than t' because t' is already
defined to be t in the Galilean transformation equations.
Robert B. Winn