🚀 go-pugleaf

"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:0vi_l.72$Wj7.6@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message 
> news:6I7_l.23213$FO5.12811@newsfe08.ams2...
>>
>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>> news:GJ5_l.1472$9Z.680@newsfe08.iad...
>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>> news:tkMZl.50$dg5.19@newsfe25.iad...
>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:h0rZl.13217$v24.9784@newsfe13.iad...
>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:7cNYl.135$jI6.66@newsfe11.iad...
>>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>> news:I5PWl.21823$xW6.8992@newsfe11.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Added to and correction of typo:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:uouWl.597$h53.307@newsfe10.iad...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spirit of Truth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   [nothing worth reading]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Contrary to people who critize what you post, you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MMX did NOT prove anything. ANY child could expain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if light was ballistic the two way result would have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result they got OR if one simply looked at Galileon 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relativity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the local distance the light travelled would obviously not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change so would have given the same result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on your frequently displayed "knowledge" of facts, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spirit, your choice of stage name is oxymoronic.  What the MMX 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "proved" is that light wasn't a wave traveling through a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> material substance - an important discovery since, based on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of other discoveries, light was presumed to be a wave. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, although some later discoveries were consistent with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particulate light, it's clear, at this point, that light isn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ballistic (e.g., the GPS wouldn't work if it were).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jem, you should know better than that. Many experts in SR
>>>>>>>>>>>> state exactly what I stated above about MMX.. And, anybody
>>>>>>>>>>>> with even a modicum understanding of math (a child) could 
>>>>>>>>>>>> expain
>>>>>>>>>>>> it to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Einstein using, or anyone else using, MMX to justify SR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or length contraction is just plain incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Single experimental results don't justify theories, viable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories have to agree with ALL experimental results.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Spirit, speaking of things "ANY child could explain", 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have you realized yet that not both observers, in Einstein's 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> train gedanken,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can simultaneously see the light flashes?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jem, you still are not confronting that both rest frames would 
>>>>>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly that.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, Spirit, both rest frames wouldn't say exactly that, since 
>>>>>>>>>>> /that/ is an impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, Jem, you are incorrect. What is an impossibility in this
>>>>>>>>>> universe is lack of simultaneity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone who dismisses a contradiction in order to maintain a belief 
>>>>>>>>> hardly deserves the moniker "Spirit of Truth".
>>>>>>>>> Oh, and BTW, June, at least express that irrational fear of yours 
>>>>>>>>> correctly.  It's not "lack of simultaneity" that cowers you - 
>>>>>>>>> simultaneity is ubiquitous in Relativity.  Your phobia is for lack 
>>>>>>>>> of /absolute/ simultaneity.
>>>>>>>>> Although, FYI, June, absolute simultaneity could be introduced 
>>>>>>>>> into the relativistic model with the greatest of ease, without 
>>>>>>>>> changing the theory one iota.
>>>>>>>> .....................................................................................................
>>>>>>>> .....................................................................................................
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? How?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're gonna have to do a little thinking in order to find out how.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred 
>>>>>>> simultaneously?
>>>>>> ...............................................................................................................
>>>>>> ..............................................................................................................
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jem, with SR there is no simultaneity except spacetime simultaneity 
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> means a block universe, and of course that is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, June, it isn't false, it's gibberish, and a pretty clear 
>>>>> indication that you don't know what "simultaneity" means.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think you know
>>>>>> something else please be good enough to tell us.
>>>>>>
>>>>> OK.  "Simultaneity" means "condition where two or more events occur at 
>>>>> the same time", which has nothing to do with spacetime or block 
>>>>> universes.
>>>>>
>>>>> So again, (assuming you still want an answer to the question you 
>>>>> asked), how can you tell whether two arbitrary events occurred 
>>>>> simultaneously?
>>>>
>>>> Stop being silly, Jem, you don't even understand your own religion.
>>>> First figure out why a block universe is the result, then come back and 
>>>> I
>>>> will explain to you why looking is superior to thinking.
>>> No need to explain why you find looking superior to thinking, June. It 
>>> makes it easier to turn your back on the things you don't want to see.
>
> Silly.
>
>> Einstein was correct in his result, the passenger sees the forward flash
>> before the backward flash. After all, he's closer to it. Why shouldn't 
>> he?
>> He'd have to be a idiot to say the flashes were not simultaneous, though.
>> That would be like claiming thunder and lightning were not simultaneous
>> because we always hear the thunder after the lightning. Even little 
>> kiddies
>> understand sound has a finite speed.
>
> Are you saying that above? If you are you are forgetting about
> non-SR relativity.
>
>> No need to explain why you are an idiot, jem. It makes it easier for you
>> to repeat nonsense like a parrot instead of thinking for yourself.
>> June may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen, but compared to
>> you she's a blu-ray.
>
> Cheeky boy! You are both "very young" in your understandings,
> and have a long way to go. I'll be here when you arrive.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth

I guess you didn't see that episode.

:)

Spirit