Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Thomas" <thomas@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125606805.640158.285910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > "Thomas" <thomas@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >  news:1125591779.834881.122340@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In what followed after this line of your comment, you repeated
> > > > > your thing with multiple observers and clocks - again.
> > > > > So I will not comment on that because AT THIS POINT WE
> > > > > CONSIDER ONLY ONE OBSERVER WITH ONE CLOCK
> > > >
> > > > Why are you so vehemently opposed to considering two observers?
> > >
> > > Because you don't understand the situation with one observer
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > > At
> > > > least it should be a legitimate approach to the problem. The point is
> > > > in fact that by restricting yourself to one observer, your are already
> > > > *implying* that the velocity is irreleveant here.
> > >
> > > That is my point.
> > >
> > > > However, this
> > > > assumption would only hold if you could describe the propagation of
> > > > light by the Galilei transformation
> > >
> > > No. In capitals:
> > > WITH ONE OBSERVER, THERE CANNOT BE A
> > > TRANSFORMATION.
> > > I will stop reading your reply here.
> > > We work with one observer.
> >
> > I am sorry to see you frustrated, but the reason is that you are
> > apparently still not understanding my argument:
>
> Oh, but I am not frustrated, nor am I interested in your arguments,
> before you are able to properly formulate arguments to begin with,
> and before you answer some very simple questions concerning single
> observers describing simple objects in their laboratory.
>
> We can contine if you reply to message
>   GWDRe.183387$pF5.10205273@phobos.telenet-ops.be
> again, keeping in mind what I just said, and keeping in mind the
> following (- it appears in the same message -):
>    |   I will work with small steps again, like before.
>    |   Do not object to something that is not written and that
>    |   I might have said before. We start from scratch.
>    |   If at some step you don't agree, stop there and skip
>    |   everything that follows. Just say OK or not OKAY, and in the
>    |   latter case, a short reason - NOT involving multiple observers
>    |   in relative motion and clocks. Only ONE OBSERVER.
> If you are not able and/or refuse to do this, I cannot help you
> properly formulate arguments and we cannot continue
> communicating the way we have been doing up to now.
> This is entirly up to you.

There is no need to set any conditions or deadlines. Take your time and
think about my arguments and you will be able to see where you are
going wrong.

Thomas