🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:36:15 -0500, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org>
wrote:

>On Thu, 06 May 2010 04:47:39 +0000, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 May 2010 08:54:13 -0500, Marvin the Martian

>>>
>>>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
>
>1) Lorentz's transformation doesn't require an aether. 
>2) From which level of hell did this straw dog come? 
>
>
>> and no Lorentz transforms you dopey bastard. 
>
>You are ignorant. 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
>Note that the Lorentz Transformation predates Einstein's paper by about 8 
>years. 

They were necessary to explain the MMX null result during the times when aether
theories reigned.
There is NO evidence of any physical contraction of length or time.

>>Light is
>> ballistic. Einstein's theory is crap.
>
>"Einstein's theory" is crap If and Only If electromagnetism is crap, 
>because the Lorentz transformation is simply the transform that holds 
>Maxwell's equations invariant. 

Maxwell's equations require an absolute rest frame. There is none.
Maxwell's derivation of the universal constant 'c' is legitimate....and c just
happens to also be the magnitude of light's speed wrt its source. 

Light from another source moves at c+v wrt an object moving at -c wrt that
source.
How could it not?

>Either  electromagnetism, or Henry Wilson is crap. 
>
>Electromagnetism predicts, thus is not crap. Ergo, Henry Wilson is crap.
>
>Test: Does Henry Wilson post stupid gibberish? Check!

All speeds are relative by definition.
Light is ballistic...as well demonstrated by variable star curves.

>Q.E.D. 

Q.E.D indeed.

>
>> Henry Wilson...
>> 
>> .......A person's IQ = his snipping ability.
>
>Ummm. No. You got that wrong as well. 

Sorry, I was refering to snipping message replies. The definition was not
intended to refer to the way Einstein worshippers snip any personal parts.

Henry Wilson...

.......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.