Re: simultaneity of relativity.

Dear dead paul:

"dead paul" <dead_paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:20060528201240407966@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:05:50 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
wrote:

Dear dead paul:

"dead paul" <dead_paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.28.10.46.31.959506@xxxxxxxxxxx ...
What has that to do with the subject? "Particles at
Cern" obey the LET math. If they drifted off into
separate times (slippage) then they would no
longer exist in a common frame.

So anyone that measures different distances is
defining a separate space?

Wheeler accepts time slippage why cant you?

Wheeler may very well define his terms, when he isn't using
standard usage. Why can't you?

Patent nonsense of course.
That is where SR and GR lead.

That is where your understanding lies, yes.
Will you try and learn, or simply snipe?

that is not a snipe.
you need to go back to school.
learn some physics.

Sniping it is, along with your lies.

Goodbye.
<plonk>

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: simultaneity of relativity.
    ... If they drifted off into separate times (slippage) then they would ... a disadvantage to be misunderstood. ... The man who is misunderstood has always this ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: simultaneity of relativity.
    ... "Particles at Cern" obey the LET math. ... drifted off into separate times (slippage) then ... they would no longer exist in a common frame. ...
    (sci.chem)