🚀 go-pugleaf

"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