🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sean McHugh" <seanm@exemail.com.au> wrote in message 
news:4A2BD3C1.B8D618EF@exemail.com.au...
>
>
> 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 will receive 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.
>
>
> Sean McHugh

Tell me, McFuckwit, is the thunder simultaneous with the lightning
and why do little boys count to five for each mile away the strike was?
 I was a little boy once, I did that. Even before I knew what a big word
like "simultaneous" actually meant I could use four-letter words like
"same time" and understood.
Later in my years when I read "the velocity of light in our theory plays
the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity" I concluded the 
author
had to be fuckin' idiot playing the part, physically, of Widow Twankey
in "Sean McFuckwit and the Fuckin' Beanstalk."
(ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ )