"Vilas Tamhane" <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Why you are giving me a long rope to hang yourself? Or may be,
> target of your message, written in a textbook fashion, is not me at
> all. Who is your target? Faithfull followers?
> Whatever might be the reason for your post, I suspect that you
> realized immediately that a single question I raised is quite damaging
> to the basic tenet of your loved scripture. And so these diversions.
> Okay I presented the gedanken in a different setup, but the essence
> was retained.
> You know that lightning is not a single source of light and for that
> matter not even a point source. A source of light in this gedanken has
> to a laser pulse; shorter the better; and a single pulse cannot be
> present in both the frames simultaneously. Another point is that, this
> condition is not at all important to explain how two events which are
> simultaneous in one frame are not so in the other frame. Root of this
> proposition is to be found in the assumed nature of light which makes
> it travel at a constant speed in all frames.
> However this peculiar nature of light makes its velocity, source
> independent. If velocity of light is source dependent then the whole
> idea of SR is to be dumped in the garbage bin. But if it source
> independent then we have no right to use it as a tool to derive some
> strange results. Use mechanical objects as bullets and SR is gone
> through the drain. Your repeating the gedanken, with all its commas
> and full stops, is of no help.