> > On Mar 30, 11:37 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Mar 30, 10:12 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Mar 30, 10:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Mar 30, 9:31 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Mar 30, 9:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Mar 30, 8:35 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > It is quite pathetic to see the relativists trying to use all their
> > > > > > > > resources trying to suppress the fallacy of relativity.  What they
> > > > > > > > lack in intellect and wit, they compensate with crudeness and
> > > > > > > > vulgarity.  They spend their whole weekend trying to get a piece of
> > > > > > > > me, yet fail miserable in their attempt to refute my logic.  The best
> > > > > > > > response was from PD, who in his usual schizophrenic logic, denies the
> > > > > > > > reality of the photon frame.  "There IS NO SUCH inertial
> > > > > > > > reference frame" he blusters.  Once again, the relativist answer is to
> > > > > > > > make an exemption.  Here is a simple link about inertial frameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
> > > > > > > > Note that it does not exempt any frame.

> > > > > > > Of course it does. Look at the definition in your own link.
> > > > > > > "In physics, an inertial frame of reference is a reference frame, tied
> > > > > > > to the state of motion of an observer, with the property that each
> > > > > > > physical law portrays itself in the same form in every inertial
> > > > > > > frame."

> > > > > > Are you trying to say that since the laws of physics appear to break
> > > > > > down in the reference frame of the photon, then the reference frame of
> > > > > > the photon does not count?   This is petitio principii, begging the
> > > > > > question, circular reasoning, or circulus in probando.

> > > > > Not at all. I didn't say the reference frame of the photon doesn't
> > > > > count. What I said was, and what is correct, is that it does not meet
> > > > > the definition of an inertial reference frame...

> > > > Precisely because the fallacy of the constancy of the speed of light
> > > > is exposed.

> > > > > > First of all, the constancy of the velocity of light IS NOT a physical
> > > > > > law.

> > > > > The laws of electrodynamics are certainly physical laws.

> > > > The constancy of the speed of light does not follow from the laws of
> > > > electrodynamics as stated by Maxwell.

> > > That's incorrect.

> > > > Rememeber, Einstein stated it
> > > > as a postulate in SR.

> > > What Einstein stated is a direct consequence of assuming that the laws
> > > of electrodynamics apply in all inertial reference frames.- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Wrong Bozo.
> > Wrong Bozo.
> > Wrong Bozo.

> > Lightspeed constancy is not a DIRECT consequence of the validity of
> > the laws of electrodynamics.  If it was, there was no need for a new
> > theory.
> > Lightspeed constancy is not a DIRECT consequence of the validity of
> > the laws of electrodynamics.  If it was, there was no need for a new
> > theory.
> > Lightspeed constancy is not a DIRECT consequence of the validity of
> > the laws of electrodynamics.  If it was, there was no need for a new
> > theory.

> Biting the dust again ah David? Why do you not take a break and study
> at least a little of physics?

> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

> "Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating,
> and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most
> well-known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another
> example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory, the
> speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is
> c = 1/sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 meters per second       (1323)
> where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated
> by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force
> of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current
> carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these
> experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
> inertial frames...