From: Da Do Ron Ron on
On May 19, 7:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>and the null result did not change anything about light,
>
> >>it changed what was known about light
>
> > Like what?
>
> Study up on the history of aether theory and of EMR if you don't know. The
> very fact that the result was unexpected meant there need to be a change in
> how light was understood.

You failed to tell us what changed about light. And you are wrong
about
there needing to be such a change even though the null result was
indeed
totally unexpected. What _did_ change was our understanding of how
matter
is affected by motion in space. The only possible physical explanation
of
the null result is intrinsic length variance.

To repeat: Absolutely nothing about light changed after the null
result.
It was an absolute frame prior to said result, and it is still an
absolute
frame long after said result.

["Da Do Ron Ron"]
> >>indeed, each such observer will find a different
> >>bogus length for one and the same such rod because
> >>each such observer's clocks are "synchronized"
> >>differently due to each such observer's different
> >>absolute speed through space.
>
> >>They will be different .. but that doesn't make them
> >>'bogus'
>
> > Are you agreeing that the differences are caused by the
> > observers' usage of absolutely asynchronous clocks?
>
> No .. read my post
>
> > If you are not agreeing to this, then what do you say is
> > the physical cause of the differences?
>
> It is due to different relative clock sync. No absolute required.
> You seem to be hung up on absolutes.

Describe "relative clock synch" and tell us exactly how it causes
observers in different frames to find different lengths for one
and the same passing rod. And while you are at it, tell us why
your observers' clocks are "relatively synch'd," if you can.

~RA~