
On 7 Mar 2006 05:59:30 0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>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.
...and you have no reason to assume that differently moving apparatus will get
the same values at the same point.
>
>George
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

