"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:Hl_hf.11346$mm5.6855@dukeread03...
>
> How do you suppose it could be "clear that the light beam is moving at 
> different speeds relative to each" until the observers have measured those 
> speeds?
>
> Like many posters to this NG, you confuse the concepts intuitive and 
> logical.  Just because something happens to be true *in the Newtonian 
> model* doesn't mean that it must be true in *every* model.
>
> E.g., if A measures B's speed to be x, and B measures C's speed to be y, 
> there's no logical requirement that A must measure C's speed to be x+y, 
> and in fact, when it's not the case (as in SR), observers can "get the 
> same value of c".
>
Like many posters in this NG, you confuse the concepts logical and relativity.

Just because something happens to be total nonsense in the SR model doesn't
mean it is logical.

E.g., If the distance from A to B is x, then the distance from B to A is -x.
Hence we have two speeds of light between A and B, namely -c = -x/t and c = x/t.

Claiming that (x+ (-x))/t = c or c+ (-c) = c  is not only illogical, it is
fucking stupid.
Which of course you logically are, being a model of stupidity in defending
such an absurd claim as 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, when IN FACT it is zero according
to the logical and mathematical model.
Androcles.