Source Independency Clearly Requires an Aether

[Henry Wilson, DSc]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:35:52 +0100, "Androcles"

The second adds that this speed is independent of the relative motion of
the
light source.
Both these claims are precisely in line with the predictions of
Lorentz's
aether theory, which regards light transmission as being identical to
that
of
sound except that an observer's time and length scales contract by the
same
ratio with motion through the supposed absolute aether. As everyone
knows, the
speed of sound in a medium is independent of source speed. Without such
a
medium, there is no reference for speed other than the source itself.
Contrary to what many claim, the MMX does NOT prove the nonexistance

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. nonexistence
2.. nondistinctive

.....typical....<shrug>

Yes, it's typical of fuckwits that they can't spell.

Phrankly I've had enuf of pommies who stik to inconsistant aincent speling.
They constently remind me that the english langwige shood be modernised so that
anywon can read the bludy stuf.
Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...

[Henry Wilson, DSc]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:35:52 +0100, "Androcles"

Einstein's P2 has two parts. The first says that all observers will
measure the
one-way speed of arriving light (if that is possible) as always having
the
value c. Of course, this has never been verified.
The second adds that this speed is independent of the relative motion of
the
light source.
Both these claims are precisely in line with the predictions of
Lorentz's
aether theory, which regards light transmission as being identical to
that
of
sound except that an observer's time and length scales contract by the
same
ratio with motion through the supposed absolute aether. As everyone
knows, the
speed of sound in a medium is independent of source speed. Without such
a
medium, there is no reference for speed other than the source itself.
Contrary to what many claim, the MMX does NOT prove the nonexistance

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
1.. nonexistence
2.. nondistinctive

.....typical....<shrug>

Yes, it's typical of fuckwits that they can't spell.

I see you have corrected 'phuckwits'.

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

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...

[Henry Wilson, DSc]

It has been .. by showing the TWLS is c and is isotropic.

Hahahahhahahahahah!...typical relativist logic ....hahahhhahhahaha!

Its perfect logic. If TWLS is c and OWLS is isotropic, then OWLS is c

Hahahhahahahhaha! That's straight out of the BaTh book. Hahhhahahhahahah!
Why don't you make up your mind which side you are on, dear lady?

The second adds that this speed is independent of the relative motion
of
the
light source.
Both these claims are precisely in line with the predictions of
Lorentz's
aether theory,

That two unrefuted theories make the same predictions doesn't mean they
are
the same theory.

SR is in AETHER theory. No doubt about it.

More lies by Henry .. is this some pschological problem you have?

Only an aether can cause all starlight traveling in a particular direction
to
do so at the same speed.
Only a dope would think otherwise.

What about unifuckation?

Unification has been around for a long time. It is normally called
'extinction', the majority of which occurs in the near vicinity of large
masses. However much of space is not entirely empty and additional unification
takes place over vast distances.

Evidence for this was gained from matching variable star curves without
introducing pitch angle twice.


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

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...

[Henry Wilson, DSc]

Einstein's P2 has two parts. The first says that all observers will
measure the
........putting Physics back into Phairyland...

And since you obviously know that the Lorentz transform is
experimentally well confirmed and never falsified, we can
conclude that according to you there must be an ether.

I'm so glad we obviously know the Lorentz transform is well
confirmed experimentally and never falsified, since that
disproves the Einstein expansion, xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Tusselad seems to have now become a full time member of the EPG. Apart from
their nuisance value and attempts to disrupt intelligent discussion, their main
purpose is to try to reinforce each other's faith by monotonously repeating the
claim that Einstein's silly theory has been verified by every known experiment.

Hahahahhahhahhah!
What a laugh...!


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

........putting Physics back into Phairyland...