On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:
"Timo Nieminen" wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:

The speed of light in diamond, water, air, any transparent
medium
is
constant with respect to the medium.

Loosely phrased, and wrong. The phase speed of light of a
given
frequency
in diamond, water, air, any stationary medium, is constant
with
respect to
the stationary medium.

Good enough to explain MMX.

So is SR, so is a fully-dragged Galilean ether, so is a Lorentz
ruler-shrinking clock-slowing ether, and so is just about any
emission
theory.

Ordinarily, it would be somewhat pedantic point, but empirical
observations of the speed of light in a moving medium were
historically
important, and continue to be theoretically important, in
chosing
which of
the above explanations of MMX could be correct. In the context
of
using an
emission theory to explain MMX, it's a worthwhile point.

SR isn't good enough, and doesn't.

That's simply wrong.

SR isn't good enough, and doesn't.

Utter nonsense (and repeating it again doesn't add weight to your
argument)!

SR isn't good enough, and doesn't.

Utter nonsense!

Any theory of electromagnetics/optics compatible with the PoR explains it
perfectly well.

I see you are completely unwilling to discuss physics. All the evidence
points to you deliberately lying. Is this the case?

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html