🚀 go-pugleaf

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.


Spirit of Truth