🚀 go-pugleaf

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.