H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light reflects of A's
mirror at its incident speed.

How? Special relativity.

Tell me Henri, when are you actually going to do the experiment?

I think you will do the same thing as Androcles after posting a 'new'
experiment: ab-so-****ing-lutely nothing.

[signip]

On 11 Oct 2004 20:51:33 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light reflects of A's
mirror at its incident speed.

How? Special relativity.

I didn't think you could give a sensible answer Geese.


Tell me Henri, when are you actually going to do the experiment?

I think you will do the same thing as Androcles after posting a 'new'
experiment: ab-so-****ing-lutely nothing.

Both Androcles an I have now suggested a number of very worthwhile and feasible
experiments.
Do you know why they will not be done, Geese?
Pretty obvious answer,eh?
a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?


[signip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 11 Oct 2004 20:51:33 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light reflects of A's
mirror at its incident speed.

How? Special relativity.

I didn't think you could give a sensible answer Geese.


Tell me Henri, when are you actually going to do the experiment?

I think you will do the same thing as Androcles after posting a 'new'
experiment: ab-so-****ing-lutely nothing.

Both Androcles an I have now suggested a number of very worthwhile and feasible
experiments.

*snicker*

I ask, again, since when did we have a drive system capable of pushing
a macroscopic object to .2c? I think you are unable to distinguish
between fantasy and reality.

Do you know why they will not be done, Geese?
Pretty obvious answer,eh?

Yes. The reason is you are comfortable arguing your insane viewpoint
ad infinitium. I can give you a dozen literature citations where there
is a divergence between what you would predict with c not being
constant, and SR would predict. Neither you or Androcles will look at
them.

C'mon Henri, explain the Compton effect. Or perhaps the Mossbauer
effect.

When are you going to do an experiment, Henri?

a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?

Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

[signip]

On 12 Oct 2004 12:17:24 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 11 Oct 2004 20:51:33 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light reflects of A's
mirror at its incident speed.

How? Special relativity.

I didn't think you could give a sensible answer Geese.


Tell me Henri, when are you actually going to do the experiment?

I think you will do the same thing as Androcles after posting a 'new'
experiment: ab-so-****ing-lutely nothing.

Both Androcles an I have now suggested a number of very worthwhile and feasible
experiments.

*snicker*

I ask, again, since when did we have a drive system capable of pushing
a macroscopic object to .2c? I think you are unable to distinguish
between fantasy and reality.

It doesn't have to be 0.2 c, you dunce.
That was just a nice round figure, dunce.


Do you know why they will not be done, Geese?
Pretty obvious answer,eh?

Yes. The reason is you are comfortable arguing your insane viewpoint
ad infinitium. I can give you a dozen literature citations where there
is a divergence between what you would predict with c not being
constant, and SR would predict. Neither you or Androcles will look at
them.

C'mon Henri, explain the Compton effect. Or perhaps the Mossbauer
effect.

Moving charges have 'field energy' associated with them.
That obeys the 'gamma relationship' with speed.


When are you going to do an experiment, Henri?

a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?

Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

Androcles has suggested a perfectly doable experiment that would finally put an
end to Einsteiniana.....and in fact all the arguing on this NG.

If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!


[signip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

C'mon Henri, explain the Compton effect. Or perhaps the Mossbauer
effect.

Moving charges have 'field energy' associated with them.
That obeys the 'gamma relationship' with speed.

Your answer shows that you don't know anything about either effect.

Furthermore, your insanity isn't even internally consistant. The
'gamma relationship', assuming you are talking of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2, is
limited to special relativity - a theory you dislike.



When are you going to do an experiment, Henri?

a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?

Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

Androcles has suggested a perfectly doable experiment that would finally put an
end to Einsteiniana.....and in fact all the arguing on this NG.

Oh really?

Link? I am greatly interested in serious experiments which would bring
down a large chunk of known physics, because it opens up hidden doors
that can be wedged open.

Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.


If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!

Like you, Perpetually sitting in a corner telling yourself you are
right and the collective mass of scientists are wrong?

Like you, so abjectly stupid that you cannot even spell the name of a
person when it is right in front of you?

Im still amazed that you are unable to think about why people would
accept special and general relativity. We didn't start the 20th
century with either theory, they came after other theories. SR & GR
were not the first, and they had to fight a hell of a lot of inertia
and pass a lot of tests to be accepted.

On 13 Oct 2004 06:28:43 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

C'mon Henri, explain the Compton effect. Or perhaps the Mossbauer
effect.

Moving charges have 'field energy' associated with them.
That obeys the 'gamma relationship' with speed.

Your answer shows that you don't know anything about either effect.

Furthermore, your insanity isn't even internally consistant. The
'gamma relationship', assuming you are talking of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2, is
limited to special relativity - a theory you dislike.

Don't be a ****ing idiot Geese.
Gamma showed up in electrostatics before Einstein was even born.




When are you going to do an experiment, Henri?

a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?

Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

Androcles has suggested a perfectly doable experiment that would finally put an
end to Einsteiniana.....and in fact all the arguing on this NG.

Oh really?

Link? I am greatly interested in serious experiments which would bring
down a large chunk of known physics, because it opens up hidden doors
that can be wedged open.

Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.


Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.

Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
What is wrong with that?
Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
and c-v.



If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!

Like you, Perpetually sitting in a corner telling yourself you are
right and the collective mass of scientists are wrong?

Like you, so abjectly stupid that you cannot even spell the name of a
person when it is right in front of you?

Im still amazed that you are unable to think about why people would
accept special and general relativity. We didn't start the 20th
century with either theory, they came after other theories. SR & GR
were not the first, and they had to fight a hell of a lot of inertia
and pass a lot of tests to be accepted.

SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
we also know there is no aether.

Now, ithout resorting to aether theory, please tell me why light from
diffferently moving stars should ever end up traveling at the same speed
through space.

Which one changes speed, Geese?




HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 13 Oct 2004 06:28:43 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

C'mon Henri, explain the Compton effect. Or perhaps the Mossbauer
effect.

Moving charges have 'field energy' associated with them.
That obeys the 'gamma relationship' with speed.

Your answer shows that you don't know anything about either effect.

Furthermore, your insanity isn't even internally consistant. The
'gamma relationship', assuming you are talking of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2, is
limited to special relativity - a theory you dislike.

Don't be a ****ing idiot Geese.
Gamma showed up in electrostatics before Einstein was even born.

Give me an example.

The earliest historical presense of the gamma factor, that I know of,
is Lorentz's work on the Michelson-Morley experiment.






When are you going to do an experiment, Henri?

a bit embarrassing for the establishment eh, Geeese?

Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

Androcles has suggested a perfectly doable experiment that would finally put an
end to Einsteiniana.....and in fact all the arguing on this NG.

Oh really?

Link? I am greatly interested in serious experiments which would bring
down a large chunk of known physics, because it opens up hidden doors
that can be wedged open.

Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.

No, you goddamn fool.

Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
in experiments is always merit-based.



Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.

Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
What is wrong with that?

It is rather unfeasible. Returned photons to a stationary ground
target are on the order of photons per second.

Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
and c-v.

You would need a companion sattelite or have it bounce to a ground
target. Have fun setting that one up.

Feel free to try though. I would be the last one to stop you from
actually doing an experiment, the ball *is* in your court. I have
nothing to gain for keeping special and general relativity. In fact,
if Newtonian kinematics reigned supreme the math would be much easier.
GR is rather difficult to learn inbetween my course load right now.




If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!

Like you, Perpetually sitting in a corner telling yourself you are
right and the collective mass of scientists are wrong?

Like you, so abjectly stupid that you cannot even spell the name of a
person when it is right in front of you?

Im still amazed that you are unable to think about why people would
accept special and general relativity. We didn't start the 20th
century with either theory, they came after other theories. SR & GR
were not the first, and they had to fight a hell of a lot of inertia
and pass a lot of tests to be accepted.

SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
we also know there is no aether.

Wrong. SR needs no aether nor does it postulate aether.


Now, ithout resorting to aether theory, please tell me why light from
diffferently moving stars should ever end up traveling at the same speed
through space.

No reason, other than it does. Why do you continue to be fixated on
questions of "why" ? I acknowledge their use - only when they can be
answered.


Which one changes speed, Geese?

Neither.

[signip]

On 13 Oct 2004 23:37:37 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 13 Oct 2004 06:28:43 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

Your answer shows that you don't know anything about either effect.

Furthermore, your insanity isn't even internally consistant. The
'gamma relationship', assuming you are talking of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2, is
limited to special relativity - a theory you dislike.

Don't be a ****ing idiot Geese.
Gamma showed up in electrostatics before Einstein was even born.

Give me an example.

The earliest historical presense of the gamma factor, that I know of,
is Lorentz's work on the Michelson-Morley experiment.

before Einstein was born.





Whats the matter, Henri? Too stupid to think of a low-cost experiment
that would disprove SR? Oh, you already thought of one, you say? Why
aren't you building the apparatus? Oh, something about 'the
establisment', you say? Thats too bad, looks like no matter what you
do, you are irrelevant.

Androcles has suggested a perfectly doable experiment that would finally put an
end to Einsteiniana.....and in fact all the arguing on this NG.

Oh really?

Link? I am greatly interested in serious experiments which would bring
down a large chunk of known physics, because it opens up hidden doors
that can be wedged open.

Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.

No, you goddamn fool.

Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
in experiments is always merit-based.

My advice is to give up Geese. You don't have the attitude or aptitude.
What the **** is a chemist doing on a physics group, anyway?




Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.

Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
What is wrong with that?

It is rather unfeasible. Returned photons to a stationary ground
target are on the order of photons per second.

Geese, it has already been done.

Please geese, don't try to behave like a physicist. You really ARE hopeless.


Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
and c-v.

You would need a companion sattelite or have it bounce to a ground
target. Have fun setting that one up.

I suggested the best setup is to use two geo-stationary satellites on opposite
sides of the Earth.
That is not difficult.


Feel free to try though. I would be the last one to stop you from
actually doing an experiment, the ball *is* in your court. I have
nothing to gain for keeping special and general relativity.

You haven't.. nor does physics, in general

In fact,
if Newtonian kinematics reigned supreme the math would be much easier.
GR is rather difficult to learn inbetween my course load right now

Of course GR is difficult. So is Earth centrism.

Einstein concocted a geometry that would make light speed always equal c. Do
you think that is (1) easy?, (2) an indication that he was insane?





If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!

Like you, Perpetually sitting in a corner telling yourself you are
right and the collective mass of scientists are wrong?

Like you, so abjectly stupid that you cannot even spell the name of a
person when it is right in front of you?

Im still amazed that you are unable to think about why people would
accept special and general relativity. We didn't start the 20th
century with either theory, they came after other theories. SR & GR
were not the first, and they had to fight a hell of a lot of inertia
and pass a lot of tests to be accepted.

SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
we also know there is no aether.

Wrong. SR needs no aether nor does it postulate aether.

SR does not need an aether because Einstein devised his clock synching method
to make is superfluous.

But SR breaks down when it tries to explain how light travels through space.



Now, ithout resorting to aether theory, please tell me why light from
diffferently moving stars should ever end up traveling at the same speed
through space.

No reason, other than it does. Why do you continue to be fixated on
questions of "why" ? I acknowledge their use - only when they can be
answered.

Geese, do you have any proof that all light travels through completely empty
space at the same speed.
If so, please explain the mechanism.



Which one changes speed, Geese?

Neither.

Ah, more fairies at work!


[signip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]


Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.

No, you goddamn fool.

Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
in experiments is always merit-based.

My advice is to give up Geese. You don't have the attitude or aptitude.

Attitude : Yes.
Aptitude : Most likely. Won't know till I get there.

At any rate, you didn't answer my question. Why is it that I think Al
has something interesting and you don't? If either of you are right,
physics gets broken in interesting ways. Al moreso than you, because
if Al is right physics is broken in a way that it has never been
broken before.

What the **** is a chemist doing on a physics group, anyway?

Ask him, not me.





Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.

Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
What is wrong with that?

It is rather unfeasible. Returned photons to a stationary ground
target are on the order of photons per second.

Geese, it has already been done.

Then there is no reason to do it again. Go read the reference and stop
proposing a repeat experiment.

My point was that if its only photons per second on a ground target,
do you really think it would be that easy to task 2 sattelites to do
that in orbit?


Please geese, don't try to behave like a physicist. You really ARE hopeless.

What do you know about being a physicist, Henri? Seriously...

When was the last time you had enough intellectual curiosity to open a
book that wasn't required for job or school?



Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
and c-v.

You would need a companion sattelite or have it bounce to a ground
target. Have fun setting that one up.

I suggested the best setup is to use two geo-stationary satellites on opposite
sides of the Earth.
That is not difficult.

Then arrange to have the experiment done. I won't try to stop you.
Since you have obviously put much thought into this, I won't even
question your statement of 'not difficult'.

Oh, right. Others do the work for you, it is merely your 'job' to
provide the ideas.



Feel free to try though. I would be the last one to stop you from
actually doing an experiment, the ball *is* in your court. I have
nothing to gain for keeping special and general relativity.

You haven't.. nor does physics, in general

Good...you see that, at least. So why keep it? Math is hard, as you
know. GR math is harder. Differential Geometry for me this spring


In fact,
if Newtonian kinematics reigned supreme the math would be much easier.
GR is rather difficult to learn inbetween my course load right now

Of course GR is difficult. So is Earth centrism.

Earth centerism is rather easy, but wrong.


Einstein concocted a geometry that would make light speed always equal c. Do
you think that is (1) easy?, (2) an indication that he was insane?

1) No. Math is hard, especially differential geometry. Do you know how
hard differential geometry is? No, you don't. I suspect you have never
even taken a 300 level math class [read: linear algebra and up].

2) No. It fits experimental evidence - despite your fits to the
contrary.






If you can see anything wrong with it, please tell us. Show us the sums. Don't
just sit there and whinge like a wimp, Geese!

Like you, Perpetually sitting in a corner telling yourself you are
right and the collective mass of scientists are wrong?

Like you, so abjectly stupid that you cannot even spell the name of a
person when it is right in front of you?

Im still amazed that you are unable to think about why people would
accept special and general relativity. We didn't start the 20th
century with either theory, they came after other theories. SR & GR
were not the first, and they had to fight a hell of a lot of inertia
and pass a lot of tests to be accepted.

SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
we also know there is no aether.

Wrong. SR needs no aether nor does it postulate aether.

SR does not need an aether because Einstein devised his clock synching method
to make is superfluous.

But SR breaks down when it tries to explain how light travels through space.

That is because it doesn't explain 'how' or 'why'. Very good Henri,
you realise what SR can't do.




Now, ithout resorting to aether theory, please tell me why light from
diffferently moving stars should ever end up traveling at the same speed
through space.

No reason, other than it does. Why do you continue to be fixated on
questions of "why" ? I acknowledge their use - only when they can be
answered.

Geese, do you have any proof that all light travels through completely empty
space at the same speed.

References have been provided for you time and again. I will not do
your research for you. Entering a few choice words into google will
get you what you need. I assume you live within a decent distance of a
university library.

If so, please explain the mechanism.

I can't. That is just how the universe is.




Which one changes speed, Geese?

Neither.

Ah, more fairies at work!

The universe is not Newtonian, haven't you noticed? There are no
faeries!

[signip]

On 14 Oct 2004 16:42:20 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]


Why do you think I watch Uncle Al's progress with more than idle
interest?

The only direction Al progresses is further up his arse.

No, you goddamn fool.

Why do you think it is that I would think Uncle Al has something
promising and you do not? There is no physicist cabal going on here,
Al is an organic chemist, im training to be a physicist. My interest
in experiments is always merit-based.

My advice is to give up Geese. You don't have the attitude or aptitude.

Attitude : Yes.
Aptitude : Most likely. Won't know till I get there.

I've already been and done it so I know I have both. That is also quite evident
from my posts.. eh?


At any rate, you didn't answer my question. Why is it that I think Al
has something interesting and you don't? If either of you are right,
physics gets broken in interesting ways. Al moreso than you, because
if Al is right physics is broken in a way that it has never been
broken before.

What the **** is a chemist doing on a physics group, anyway?

Ask him, not me.

What is Al trying to prove? I've forgotten.






Unfortunately, I highly doubt Androcles has came up with anything of
worth. He appears to have no analytical ability.

Bounce light off the moon from a moving satellite.
What is wrong with that?

It is rather unfeasible. Returned photons to a stationary ground
target are on the order of photons per second.

Geese, it has already been done.

Then there is no reason to do it again. Go read the reference and stop
proposing a repeat experiment.

It isn't the same experiment, goose.


My point was that if its only photons per second on a ground target,
do you really think it would be that easy to task 2 sattelites to do
that in orbit?

No harder than 'star wars'. The moon is a pretty big target.
- and the mirror will reflect back in exactly the incident direction.



Please geese, don't try to behave like a physicist. You really ARE hopeless.

What do you know about being a physicist, Henri? Seriously...

When was the last time you had enough intellectual curiosity to open a
book that wasn't required for job or school?

Actually, goose, I have just written a book for school kids and interested
laypeople called "what exactly IS Physics?".
Send me $10 and I'll Email it to you..




Please tell us why it should not discriminate between light traveling at c+v
and c-v.

You would need a companion sattelite or have it bounce to a ground
target. Have fun setting that one up.

I suggested the best setup is to use two geo-stationary satellites on opposite
sides of the Earth.
That is not difficult.

Then arrange to have the experiment done. I won't try to stop you.
Since you have obviously put much thought into this, I won't even
question your statement of 'not difficult'.

Oh, right. Others do the work for you, it is merely your 'job' to
provide the ideas.

I cannot do it Geese. Not enough money. I'll have to ask the Chinese.




Feel free to try though. I would be the last one to stop you from
actually doing an experiment, the ball *is* in your court. I have
nothing to gain for keeping special and general relativity.

You haven't.. nor does physics, in general

Good...you see that, at least. So why keep it? Math is hard, as you
know. GR math is harder. Differential Geometry for me this spring

GR maths is impossible because it is analogous to earth centrism. It tries to
create a geometry that will maintain a constant c under all circumstances.
Light speed is c relative to its source but nothing else. Light speed will also
change in a gravity field like matter does.

GR is plainly an exercise in sheer stupidity.
......all it ever does is make a lot of pseudo scientists feel very smug.



In fact,
if Newtonian kinematics reigned supreme the math would be much easier.
GR is rather difficult to learn inbetween my course load right now

Of course GR is difficult. So is Earth centrism.

Earth centerism is rather easy, but wrong.

I suppose you are a flat-earther, eh geese?



Einstein concocted a geometry that would make light speed always equal c. Do
you think that is (1) easy?, (2) an indication that he was insane?

1) No. Math is hard, especially differential geometry. Do you know how
hard differential geometry is? No, you don't. I suspect you have never
even taken a 300 level math class [read: linear algebra and up].

I always came top in geometry. It's my speciality.


2) No. It fits experimental evidence - despite your fits to the
contrary.

Bull!!!



SR is nothing but a disguised form of aether theory. We know that Geese. ...and
we also know there is no aether.

Wrong. SR needs no aether nor does it postulate aether.

SR does not need an aether because Einstein devised his clock synching method
to make is superfluous.

But SR breaks down when it tries to explain how light travels through space.

That is because it doesn't explain 'how' or 'why'. Very good Henri,
you realise what SR can't do.

Geese, I'll tell you a secret, RELATIVITY EXPLAINS NOTHING!




No reason, other than it does. Why do you continue to be fixated on
questions of "why" ? I acknowledge their use - only when they can be
answered.

Geese, do you have any proof that all light travels through completely empty
space at the same speed.

References have been provided for you time and again. I will not do
your research for you. Entering a few choice words into google will
get you what you need. I assume you live within a decent distance of a
university library.

If so, please explain the mechanism.

I can't. That is just how the universe is.

Is what?
SR has no answer to the question. It breaks down.





Which one changes speed, Geese?

Neither.

Ah, more fairies at work!

The universe is not Newtonian, haven't you noticed? There are no
faeries!

I know that. ..but SRians don't


[signip]


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm