Re: This Newsgroup.


<cadwgan_gedrych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1114781736.610853.136620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > <cadwgan_gedrych@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1114713560.979481.45060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > > We all know that one frame can find events
> > > E1 and E2 to be simultaneous, whereas another
> > > will find them happening at different times
> > > (just as my initial picture depicted), but
> > > what we do NOT know is WHY?
>
> > Of course we know why, in the sense that it is a
> > direct consequence of the combination of (1) the
> > way we physically -operationally- define and measure
> > distances and times of remote events, and (2) the
> > assumption, based on experience, that light speed
> > is observer independent.
> > And, no, we don't know WHY we experience (2).
> > And yes, you don't understand (2) and therefore don't
> > accept (2) but that is entirely your problem.
>
> Well, now we are finally getting somewhere; however,
> your (2) is ambiguous, and that is a big problem since
> (2) is 50% of your given answer.

You stupid fart, it is not ambiguous for the very reason
that it is an *assumption*.
I told you that you wouldn't understand that.

But I will now repeat my last lines of my previous messsage:

"But before you say anything, explain to me what is so
utterly wrong and stupid in this one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
What makes you think that an imbecile like you would
understand *anything* beyond 1+1=2?

Dirk Vdm


.

Relevant Pages