Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Question For Relativity 'Experts'.
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:55:45 +1000
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <e4op52Flb34U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <nrvecg$182k$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e4h2a0FpqjhU1@mid.individual.net> <nrvoa0$1hfu$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e4jko0Fe53hU2@mid.individual.net> <ns4dhe$v5s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e4mnonF637kU1@mid.individual.net> <ns5q37$nee$1@gioia.aioe.org> <e4n8u5Fa3v3U1@mid.individual.net> <ns6moq$6c2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net XROtkLtGNJ672TaGYow0vARWTk5LD5/1YItafVXZydUgJl7YnG
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1kTd+IuDI8N0nciAiuqsphy/O8s=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
In-Reply-To: <ns6moq$6c2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:393679

On 25/09/2016 6:13 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 24/09/16 22:12, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 24/09/2016 10:04 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> .
>>>>
>>>> Since something moving at the speed of light relative to one
>>>> observer is
>>>> also moving at the speed of light relative to all other observers,
>>>> there's nothing it needs to do, or know.
>>>
>>> There are no bloody observers you dimwit. There is an accelerating light
>>> source and some photons.
>>>
>>> If you can't give a reason why the second photon does not do exactly
>>> what the first one did....that is, move at c relative to its source....
>>> then I can only assume you don't have one.
>>
>> It does move at c relative to its source.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean that it will catch up with the previous pulse,
>> because of the way that velocities combine (i.e. not by simple addition).
>
> Ok, let us introduce an arbitrary observer who will eventually receive
> the light pulses. Quite obviously, his presence cannot affect the way
> the pulses leave the source or the speed at which either of them
> subsequently travels. To claim that the chance existence of his obscure
> frame of reference is the sole determinant of the speeds of the pulses
> is nonsensical. The only true reference is the source itself.
>
>

Sometimes it seems you won't take yes for an answer.

You insist that the light pulse moves at c relative to the source.

I agree.

What's the next step in your argument?

Sylvia.