🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:42:24 +0000, Henry Wilson DSc wrote:

> 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.

Time dilation has been observed. True enough about length. The problem 
with length contraction is that the experiment is hard to set up. You 
wouldn't be making an appeal to ignorance fallacy, would you?

And you ignored the point that the Lorentz transformation, which IS 
special relativity, is a direct result of the well proven to predict 
theory of Maxwell's equations. 

>>>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.

Wrong, they do not require an absolute rest frame and they fail to be 
invariant under a Galilean transformation, so they are NOT EXPECTED to 
require an absolute rest frame. 

> 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.

Proven wrong, but I repeat myself. 

At this point, I recognized you as an idiot crank who prattles on about 
stuff he has only a complete ignorance of. Since your ignorance is 
compounded with the sin of donkey-assed stupidity, I shall deposit your 
identity into my "killfile" so that I will not have to be bothered with 
your ignorant pig headed incurable ignorance. Being ignorant is 
forgivable, but being pig headed stupid isn't.

I post this message as a warning to other readers not to be taken in by 
this jackass called "Henry Wilson". He hasn't a clue. He's clearly 
ignorant of the existing theory, how it was derived, and how it has been 
verified.