🚀 go-pugleaf

"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?


Spirit of Truth