"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
 message news:DEozf.162888$e46.6444166@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> 
> <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message 
>  news:1137546109.701901.124640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > This kind of nonsense comes from the inability of scientists to
> > understand the concept of velocity. Consider your set of coordinates
> > again. What is the velocity of a photon traveling along the x-axis in
> > the negative direction relative to the set of coordinates?
> > Hint: It is not c.
> > Now consider the Lorentz equations. Have you ever wondered why
> > Lorentz or Einstein or somebody did not reduce the equations down?
> > Where I went to school we learned in Algebra I not to leave an equation
> > in the form of
> >            x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> > or
> >            t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
> > So why doesn't someone reduce these equations down?
> 
> Realizing that these two equations are valid for all possible
> combinations of x and t, and produce the corresponding
> values for x' and t', how would you reduce them down?

[no answer]

> 
> 
> > They can't and still have the equations work. Wherever c is found
> > in the equations , it has to be squared
> 
> c appears squared in the above equations.
> 
> >, or the equations cannot
> > describe a photon moving in the negative direction on the x axis. c in
> > the equations should be w, the velocity of light.
> 
> We have given the name c to the speed of light, so when we
> are working in two opposite directions, the velocity of light in
> the direction of the x-axis is given by c, while the velocity in
> the opposite direction is given by -c.
> 
> > Einstein's two
> > equations that represent the results of the Michelson-Morley
> > experiment, x=ct, x'=ct' are only true for a photon traveling in the +x
> > direction. A photon traveling the other way would be shown by x=(-c)t,
> > x'=(-c)t'.n
> 
> Of course.
> The equation
>          x = c t
> describes the path of a light signal in the +x direction.
> As you can verify when plugging this in the transformation
> and eliminating x and t to find the equation in the primed
> frame, you get
>          x' = c t'.
> 
> Likewise, the equation
>          x = - c t
> describes the path of a light signal in the -x direction.
> As you can verify when plugging this in the transformation
> and eliminating x and t to find the equation in the primed
> frame, you get
>          x' = - c t'.
> 
> > These two equations should have been x=wt, x'=wt'.
> > If scientists ever learn the concept of velocity, perhaps they
> > will be able to discuss light.
> 
> What is wrong with what I just explained without using
> the symbol w?
> 
> Dirk Vdm

What is wrong with using the symbol w and reducing the equations down?
What are you trying to hide?
Robert B. Winn