🚀 go-pugleaf

> 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
>> 

OK, go get a mature adult.