🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 4:42 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:36:15 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@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.

Well, among the baldly false statements you make throughout this post,
you've just said that Maxwell's equations don't work and therefore do
not describe electrodynamics in nature.


> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -