🚀 go-pugleaf

A slight amendment/qualification.

Androcles wrote (60):
> 
> "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


Assume the travelling recipient is on a train and the stationary
recipient is midway along that train when the discharges occur,
striking the ends of the train. The train is here purely as a measure.
The travelling recipient [in your pictures] receives the flashes
simultaneously, but for him to determine that the lightning discharges
_occurred_ simultaneously, he will have to maintain that he was
equidistant from the the discharges at the time that they occurred. 
This, from your moving pictures, won't be the case. The travelling
recipient was further back from from the stationary recipient and the
midpoint when the discharges occurred. He also knows knows he wasn't
midway because he knows that he wasn't/isn't in the middle of the
train. The latter, however, was adjacent to the middle of the train
when the discharges occurred. If both receive the flashes
simultaneously, but only one can say he was equidistant from the
discharges when they occurred, only one of them can say that the
discharges occurred simultaneously. 

The brackets, in the above, contain the amendment. 


Sean McHugh