Home Is Where The Wind Blows

An immortal fumble by David Strich (30-Mar-2009)

Strich does the Maxwell
On Mar 30, 10:39 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:31 am, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 30, 9:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Mar 30, 8:35 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> It is quite pathetic to see the relativists trying to use all their
>>>> resources trying to suppress the fallacy of relativity. What they
>>>> lack in intellect and wit, they compensate with crudeness and
>>>> vulgarity. They spend their whole weekend trying to get a piece of
>>>> me, yet fail miserable in their attempt to refute my logic. The best
>>>> response was from PD, who in his usual schizophrenic logic, denies the
>>>> reality of the photon frame. "There IS NO SUCH inertial
>>>> reference frame" he blusters. Once again, the relativist answer is to
>>>> make an exemption. Here is a simple link about inertial
>>>>   frameshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
>>>> Note that it does not exempt any frame.
> 
>>> Of course it does. Look at the definition in your own link.
>>> "In physics, an inertial frame of reference is a reference frame, tied
>>> to the state of motion of an observer, with the property that each
>>> physical law portrays itself in the same form in every inertial
>>> frame."
> 
>> Are you trying to say that since the laws of physics appear to break
>> down in the reference frame of the photon, then the reference frame of
>> the photon does not count? This is petitio principii, begging the
>> question, circular reasoning, or circulus in probando.
> 
> Not at all. I didn't say the reference frame of the photon doesn't
> count. What I said was, and what is correct, is that it does not meet
> the definition of an inertial reference frame...

Precisely because the fallacy of the constancy of the speed of light
is exposed.

>> First of all, the constancy of the velocity of light IS NOT a physical
>> law.
> 
> The laws of electrodynamics are certainly physical laws.
> 

The constancy of the speed of light does not follow from the laws of
electrodynamics as stated by Maxwell.  Rememeber, Einstein stated it
as a postulate in SR.
 Fumble Index  Original post & context:
 670eb3b6-4823-4c39-8b8c-ee09f8dbc03a@l3g2000vba.googlegroups.com