🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 7 May 2010 05:42:03 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote:

>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:
>>

>> >> 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.

The idea that light speed is always measured as being c is a direct consequence
of Lorentz's 'contraction' idea.

>> 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?

He produced a value of c. ...which, in all reality, is the speed of light
relaytive to its source.

> >> 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


Henry Wilson...

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