Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Silver mirror
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:12:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <o7it0j$gfa$4@pcls7.std.com>
References: <f3284667-72c8-485a-8d4b-49434e6a2e5e@googlegroups.com>  <o6ih7s$l9o$1@news.albasani.net> <77db3ce9-2b1d-4ac4-b797-2428b7483dff@googlegroups.com>  <xaqdnfBtcq5ebhHFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <0433dfa7-8441-4ef1-adf8-df026c587bdc@googlegroups.com>  <jqmdnRcWSY5D6w7FnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <d298b57e-1571-4c50-8e84-acb3ad3d4d6a@googlegroups.com> <o70epl$590$1@gioia.aioe.org> <f041d233-9b32-4960-96fb-78acac19f61f@googlegroups.com>  <o72elu$158p$1@gioia.aioe.org> <127e59e6-ccf7-4384-b129-7a6354a60f7f@googlegroups.com>  <o73006$2v9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4828bd4a-6f67-458a-9c1f-488696d228e4@googlegroups.com>  <o77j9q$beo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <589920b9$0$43720$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>  <o7ckvh$1rhj$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a03f4acb-e3b8-4832-b226-3a46e688e346@googlegroups.com> <o7d9j4$12n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <c3f9ca00-ba26-4b05-b8ec-567fdb5f7407@googlegroups.com>  <o7fu7c$7ko$2@gioia.aioe.org> <3559ed97-e43e-460c-b420-1a20be4b37b8@googlegroups.com>  <o7g7t3$nh7$2@gioia.aioe.org> <bc1d7e84-f690-4ba3-8850-484a938c58c6@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1486681939 16874 192.74.137.71 (9 Feb 2017 23:12:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:12:19 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: nn/6.6.5
Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:408670

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 5:59:52 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> So I just want to point out that Insane Ken is maintaining that, though
>> Einstein used his postulates to show that both relativity of
>> simultaneity AND the Lorentz transform NECESSARILY FOLLOW from those
>> postulates, he insists that the Lorentz transformations instead say that
>> simultaneity is NOT relative at all. Because Insane Ken says so.

>No idiot....P2 says that the closing speed of light is isotropic in all
>frames and RoS says that the closing speed of light is different in different
>frames. So I don't see how you get the goofy idea that RoS and the LT
>necessary follow from the postulates.

No, Stupid Ken. P2 states that the speed of light is isotropic in all
frames, not the closing speed of light (and what?).  And no, the RoS
does NOT state the speed of light or the closing speed of light is not
isotropic, Stupid Ken.

Do you even know what a closing speed is?  Oh yes, we've been through this
before, the answer is no, you don't.