🚀 go-pugleaf

Spirit of Truth wrote:
> "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 midicum understanding of math (a child) could expain
> it to you.
> 

Actually, Spirit, it's unlikely ANY expert in SR would "state exactly 
what [you] stated above about MMX".  The fact that MMX doesn't 
preclude every conceivable theory except Relativity doesn't equate to 
"MMX did NOT prove anything".