🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 7, 4:27 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 05:42:03 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...@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.

No, you've got cart before the horse. Lorentz contraction is a direct
consequence of light speed always being measured as being c. What you
said is exactly backwards.

>
> >> 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?

Does it Henry? Answering a direct question with a nonresponsive answer
is passive-aggressive behavior.

>
> 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.