🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.  And it's an impossibility even in models in which 
> simultaneity is absolute.  There's exactly one location, in Einstein's 
> one-spatial-dimension gedanken, at which the two light flashes meet, and 
> when they meet, not both observers are at that location.
>
> It's something that almost "ANY child could explain", Spirit, but some 
> grown-ups (chronologically speaking) seem to have an awfully hard time 
> understanding the explanation.

Explain this to a mature adult as any child could:
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/simultaneous.gif