"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0501131152150.18995-100000@localhost...
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Androcles wrote:

"Timo Nieminen" wrote:

Well, the speed c-v that he objected to my use of was exactly the
speed at
which the light pulse closes with the moving mirror.

But what would you expect? Do you really think Androcles would have
admitted being wrong?

No, I will not, because I'm not wrong.
(c-v) is not equal to 1/sqrt(epsilon0 * mu0), which are constants
and the basis of Mazer's argument that Maxwell's laws apply.
Therefore c-v is not permitted in SR, which says c = (c-v)/(1-v/c)

Consider a source (stationary or moving) emitting a pulse of light.
According to SR, that pulse of light moves at c (in free space). That
is,
in any inertial reference frame, dr/dt = c, where r(t) is the
instantaneous position of the pulse of light in that reference frame.

If we have a mirror (or some other object) moving at velocity v
directly
away from the position where the pulse was emitted from, we have
dP/dt = v.

d/dt being a linear operator, d(r-P)/dt = c-v, and therefore the rate
at
which the distance between the pulse of light and the moving object
becomes smaller is |c-v|.

That's just basic Galileian kinematics. Are you really trying to claim
that Galileo was wrong?

Even if you are claiming that Galileo was wrong, that's irrelevant,
since
you claim was that SR predicts a non-null result for MMX, and SR
assumes
that Galileian kinematics work in any given reference frame.

SR does NOT explain MMX, and source dependency does.

So, even after you failed to provide any refutation of the analysis of
the
original MMX showing that SR predicts that there would be no fringe
shift
(thereby demolishing your original claim), you continue to repeat your
claim. Thank you for the demonstration of your level of intellectual
honesty.

Intellectual honesty isn't something you would know the meaning of.
SR predicts a non-null result for MMX, because SR claims the speed of
light is invariant and x' =/= y'. I see no reason to repeat the math.



Source dependency also explains cepheids as quite ordinary stars,
recurrent novae as ordinary stars, flare stars as ordinary stars
and changes the orbital parameters of eclipsing variables, which
if the source independency model is used would rip apart from
tidal forces in a mere century.
NOBODY has ever measured the speed of light from a moving
source in the vacuum of space. That is about to change.

You have an experiment ready to do? Wonderful!

Sure I do, smart-arse. Shoot the moon from the ISS with a laser and
look at the reflection with HST. Repeat continously as the
ISS approaches and recedes relative to the moon. Track position
of the HST and ISS using GPS and time the events with the
best clocks available.
I've already given you an electronic MMX, and an analysis,
you didn't say "Wonderful!" to that, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.



But, given that you don't accept de Sitter's analysis, why do you
think
the "vacuum of space" is a good enough vacuum?

I don't believe in aether as you do, Mr. Intellectual Honesty.
I do believe you are a ****ing idiot and a lying dirtbag, though.

Now **** off.
Androcles