🚀 go-pugleaf

"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. If you think you know
something else please be good enough to tell us.


Spirit