🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

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.

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.