🚀 go-pugleaf

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message 
news:of8Xl.20028$En5.632@newsfe09.iad...
>> Androcles wrote (60):
>>> "jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>>> news:I5PWl.21823$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.

Already here, child. Oh wait, you can't explain it, you must still be
an embryo (or a moron).