
Henri Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 21:43:19 0000, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >news:kklm02160ij0fgrpb1j0no0pcaktj45phi@xxxxxxxxxx
> >...
> >> George has this funny idea that Maxwell's equations imply that all light
> >> arriving at an observer must travel at the value of c which has been
> >> calculated by that observer from measurements of Maxwell's two constants.
> >
> >Funnily enough, so does the rest of the scientific
> >and maths community. Here's the proof
> >
> >http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/Maxwell/node5.html
> >
> >and in more detail
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/z52fw
> >
> >
> >> In fact, 'c' is just a universal constant that happens to also be the
> >> value of light's speed wrt its source.
> >
> >Almost, it is the ratio dx/dt in the equations and is
> >therefore relative to the origin of that coordinate
> >system, hence it is the same for all sources. That's
> >why it is incompatible with Ritz.
>
> It is also quite meaningless unless a reference is defined for tat speed.
I just told you what the reference is Henry, "the
origin of that coordinate system". That's the way
the equations work.
> Nothing has a 'velocity' George.
> It can only have a velocity 'relative to something'.
> Maxwell's 'c' was relative to the one and only absolute aether.
Nope, as you said in another post, it is relative
to the measuring equipment.
George

