🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 5, 11:47 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 08:54:13 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 05 May 2010 08:50:29 +0000, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:00:49 -0500, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On 4/30/10 3:34 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>>> According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light DOES depend on the
> >>>> speed of the observer
>
> >>>   Empirically verified.
>
> >> Nice to see you have finally seen the light, Wormey
>
> >> Henry Wilson...
>
> >> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
>
> >I don't know where you three idiots get that, but no.
>
> >Maxwell's equations are only invariant under the Lorentz transformation,
> >and that preserves the speed of light regardless of the speed of the
> >observer.
>
> >But then, I shouldn't be wasting my time with physics ignoramuses who
> >don't know lower division undergrad physics. (Okay, with things the way
> >they are, it may now be UPPER division undergrad physics...)
>
> There is no aether and no Lorentz transforms you dopey bastard.
> Light is ballistic. Einstein's theory is crap.

Well, let's see.
Lorentz transforms are mathematical relations between coordinates.
When you write them down on a piece of paper, they exist.
Maxwell's equations superbly describe measured electrodynamics outside
the quantum realm.
It is easy to show the invariance of Maxwell's equations under the
Lorentz transforms with some lines of algebra on a piece of paper.
Once it's written down, it's pretty hard to deny that the
demonstration has been done.

Unless, of course, you clamp your eyes shut and mutter, "No-no-no-no-
no. I won't look and you can't make me. I *deny* your reality and
substitute my own."