>>>> Closing speed greated than c when the thing that is moving, STUPID, is
>>>> light, violates the light postulate.
> 
>>> No, it doesn't, Mike. The light postulate refers to relative speed,
>>> not closing speed. Big difference.
> 
>> Write the equations for closing speed and for relative speed.
> 
> Why? Are you under the impression that if two equations are the same,
> they have the same physical meaning?
> 
> 
> 
>> You should now, that the only speed define din kinematics is relative.
> 
> No sir, that is not correct.
> 
> Closing speed is the absolute value of the arithmetic difference
> between the velocities of two objects, as seen in a third reference
> frame. It is not a directly measurable physical quantity, and the
> value is obtained strictly via an arithmetic operation.

It is not a directly measurable physical quantity, yet used to decide
about physical situations as in Eistein's paper.

> 
> Relative speed is the absolute value of the velocity of one object as
> measured in the rest inertial frame of another object. It is a
> directly measurable physical quantity.

OK

> 
> There is a clear distinction between closing speed and relative speed
> in physics.

What you said is that in physics, which is an experimental science (I
hope you agree), relative speed is a valid concept but closing speed
is a concept that is bogus because it is not directly measurable.

> 
> The first postulate is a statement about the relative speed of light
> with respect to the rest inertial frame of an observer. It says
> NOTHING about the value of a closing speed between light and another
> object, as measured in a third reference frame.

The postulate includes all kinds of physical speed measures, it does
not specify relative, absolute or closing. Read it first.

> 
> Had you bothered to READ something, Mike, you would find that you
> shouldn't have bothered bringing this up in the first place. I find it
> extraordinary that, for the sake of getting a free education on usenet
> on these topics, you are willing to make a blustering, foamy shambles
> of your dignity. Don't you think that preservation of a small amount
> of dignity would be worth the cost of buying and reading better
> materials on the subject?
> 


In Einstein's derivation there is no issue/need of another frame in
which one can apply a bogus concept of closing speed. You have two
reference frames, a stationary and a moving.

You have invented this concept of closing speed, which you admit is
bogus and experimentally not verifiable, to save Einstein's erroneous
conlusions about simultaneity.

Save, c-v, one could forget about it, but c+v cannot have any meaning
in SR. if you insit of using c+v, you must justify why in an
experimental field you are using a concept that is not verifiable. The
answer is that Einstein could not prove relative simultaneity without
using this bogus concept. After admiting the light postulate, it
turned out simultaneity was absolute. I also agree that there is
something worng with absolute simultaneity but his mornal reaction,
the normal reaction of every sane man, should have been to reject the
lght postulate. Instead, he create a whole generation of cranks,
people on mission like you to assasinate personalities, and a bogues
science.

PD, you are not a crank maybe. You are probably a manipulator. You
have a mission. Your mission is to humiliate people that understand
the bogus nature of SR.

Thank you for your admission that closing speed is a non-physical
concept. You should agree that non-physical concepts should not be
used to make deductions about physical situations.

Thus, my main objection is the need to consider a third bogus frame
with a bogus arithmetic speed. Such frame is not needed, but it is
manufactured to save relative simultaneity after light posulate is
adopted. However, all that one should be concerned with is the
stationary and moving frame and how measurements translate from one to
the other.

Mike