🚀 go-pugleaf

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.