🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 5, 10:59 pm, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:

> 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.

If you accept the null results of the MMX which almost all physicists
do, then there are two models to explain these. The first went back
more than 200 years ago.  The ballistic theory of light just as
Newton, Cavendish, Von Soldner, Michell, and Laplace envisioned.
Then, there was the discoveries of electromagnetism that tossed out
any validities in the ballistic theory of light.  The only other way
to explain the null results of the MMX stands on Voigt’s postulate
where the observed speed of light must be invariant to the observer.
As opposing to common myth, the MMX did not validate the principle of
relativity.  <shrug>

There are an infinite numbers of transforms as modification to the
Galilean transform to explain these null results.  The Lorentz
transform is the only one that satisfies the principle of relativity,
and the Voigt transform is the only one that does not manifests the
twin’s paradox.  The Lorentz transform must be discarded because it
manifests the absurdity of the twin’s paradox.  If you accept the
Voigt transform, the principle of relativity was then proven to be
false by the MMX itself.  Isn’t that ironic?  The principle of
relativity only applies to low speeds then.

The bending of light can be modeled as light speed gradient in the
local level.  However, the Snell’s law that follows would only suggest
a Newtonian bending result.  It is indeed bizarre and intriguing, but
yours truly has the solution already.

> Einstein using, or anyone else using, MMX to justify SR
> or length contraction is just plain incorrect.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.