🚀 go-pugleaf

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).

> 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?