Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/22/04
- Next message: zigoteau: "Re: solid angle"
- Previous message: Matthias: "Re: Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results"
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:12:32 -0600
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:929ed0f8.0411220041.4656e535@posting.google.com...
> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<RV9od.39407$z3.3390@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> > SR is supposed to be physics, a theory about the physical. Hence, its
basic
> > effects must be physical or it is complete nonsense.
> > Contraction is one of those basic effects and the PoR says both of two
> > bodies in relative motion must be contracted relative to the other.
> Thats not what the principle of relativity states. That is a result
> derived from special relativity. Learn the difference.
How do you manage to be such an idiot on what must be such short notice?
SR says no such thing. SR says a inertialy moving object contracts. Period.
It is the PoR that says if that is so then the stationary object must also
contract because it too is moving inertially, wrt the supposed moving
object.
eleaticus
- Next message: zigoteau: "Re: solid angle"
- Previous message: Matthias: "Re: Surprising Pattern of Florida's Election Results"
- In reply to: Eric Gisse: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Reply: Eric Gisse: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
