🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.


Spirit of Truth