On 20 Feb 2007 05:51:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 20, 12:24 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 19:30:44 -0800, "PD" wrote:





On Feb 19, 7:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 19 Feb 2007 06:09:20 -0800, "PD" wrote:

Of course I am.
I start with the postulate that w = c and end up with an equation that seems to
CAUSE w to always be c.

Well, of course if you are setting out to show that w will always be
c, then of course you are being circular. But the point of the
derivation is to find a rule for combining velocities of *anything*,
not just light. It is that *rule* that is the desired result, not the
claim that w will always be c (that is, of course, what was assumed).
Then the rule is tested against things *other than* light. Sure
enough, it has worked absolutely everywhere it has been tested. This
tells you the rule appears to be generally true. Since the derivation
says this generality is a *direct* result of w always being c, then
the claim that w is always c is given support.

The rule has never been proved.

You simply delude that it has.

Of course it has. I mentioned several examples. I could certainly
point you to some reading where you can find out about it in detail.
Would you like some references, Henri?

Or is it better if you just clamp your hands over your ears and
holler, "La-la-la-la-la! I don't believe it and you can't make me! La-
la-la-la-la!"

Draper, when I see astronomers floundering around in the dark, trying to
explain what they see with way out theories based on Einsteiniana, I laugh my
****ing head off.
You are no better.


I don't see how what astronomers do with their time has anything to do
with the experimental verification of the rule of combining velocities
in, say, particle interactions.

Now, would you like some reading material about that experimental
verification, Henri? Or are their experimental measurements also "way
out" and "based on Einsteiniana"?

i hear the physics mafia is recruiting suicide bombers....why don't you have a
go Draper...

PD