"SRdude" wrote in message oups.com...
Wrong answer, Dirk Vdm. (And I seriously doubt that anyone else
will concur with you.)

At that point in his book, Einstein had yet to even mention the
relativistic velocity composition theorem, let alone derive it.

Well, my dear troll (aka Cadwgan Gedrych (aka Edward Travis
(aka Ron Aikas (aka Roy Royce (aka Martin Miller (aka John
Reid (aka Brian D. Jones))))))), this has been explained befo
there is *nothing* relativistic to this derivation at all. It is not a
velocity composition *at all*.


w = c - v is a direct measurement of the one-way speed of a
departing light ray wrt a single frame (the carriage).

Well, my dear idiot (aka Cadwgan Gedrych (aka Edward Travis
(aka Ron Aikas (aka Roy Royce (aka Martin Miller (aka John
Reid (aka Brian D. Jones))))))), this has been explained befo
it is the distance between two objects having two different
velocities with respect to the same observer, exactly like I
explained it to you.


Further note, Dirk Vdm, that if the result had been - as you claim -
compatible with special relativity, then Einstein would not have
lamented that "...this result comes into conflict with the principle
of relativity...."

Well, my dear donkey (aka Cadwgan Gedrych (aka Edward Travis
(aka Ron Aikas (aka Roy Royce (aka Martin Miller (aka John
Reid (aka Brian D. Jones))))))), this has been explained befo
There is a huge difference between this "third party velocity" where
two object have two velocities w.r.t. one observer, and the other
case where one object has a velocity w.r.t. one oberserver, who
has in turn a velocity w.r.t. another observer.


Quit trying to rewrite SR history in order to squirm out of my
challenge.

Well, my dear bigot (aka Cadwgan Gedrych (aka Edward Travis
(aka Ron Aikas (aka Roy Royce (aka Martin Miller (aka John
Reid (aka Brian D. Jones))))))), this has been explained befo
quit showing how stupid you are and how little you even understand
of basic baby physics.

Dirk Vdm