🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 6 May 2010 14:51:44 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>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:

>> >>>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 equations use the reference frame of the fields in the apparatus
used.

>> Maxwell's derivation of the universal constant 'c' is legitimate....and c just


Henry Wilson...

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