🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 6, 10:58 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:18:20 -0500, Marvin the Martian <mar...@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
> >> <mar...@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.

Yes, they do believe it. That's because scientists have the habit of
actually reading the paper before dismissing it as unbelievable.

>
> >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?

Did a little more than that.

>
> >>>>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.

Yes, this is true. This does NOT mean that all speeds change value
when referred to a different frame.

> Maxwell used the absolute aether frame, in which he firmly believed.

No, he didn't. He thought so at first, and then recanted. Does that
sound like firm belief to you?

>
> >> 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.