🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:18:20 -0500, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org>
wrote:

>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:

>>>> 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. 

It hasn't. ...but relativists like to inform each other over and over that it
has. They eventually believe it.

>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?

Nothing happens to a rod as a result of a speed change.

if a moving observer measures a metre rod to be anything other than a metre
then the method used is flawed.

>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. 

Maxwell produced a numerical value for c. So fucking what?

>>>>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. 

All speeds MUST BE specified relative to a frame.
Maxwell used the absolute aether frame, in which he firmly believed.

>> 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.
Oh? So you deny that light moves at c wrt its source? That's very odd.  

>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. 

If you weren't so stupid I would plonk you...but I'm enjoying this too much...

Henry Wilson...

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