Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 10/28/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:19:46 +0200
V ertner Vergon wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<clnngt$1nk$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>V ertner Vergon wrote:
>>
>>>pdraper@yahoo.com (Paul Draper) wrote in message news:<74768d2d.0409300807.55a85748@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>
>>Just a short comment about notation (since you are incapable of
>>understanding the logical arguments against your claims).
>>
>>[snip]
>
>
> Vergon:
>
> Who's kidding who? You have no logical arguments against my "clains"
ROTFL!!! Good joke, really.
> so you play the feminine game of being above that and try to succeed
> by putting your superiors down. You are a sorry mess.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>>>where √(1 ? v2/c2) is the
>>>Lorentz transformation.
>>
> Vergon:
>
> I don't know hwere the hell that came from -- also I thought I had
> corrected it: sqrt(1 ? v2/c2).
Then it's still wrong (-, not ?), and it's still not the
"Lorentz transformation".
>>No, it isn't. This factor is called the "gamma factor", *not* the
>>Lorentz transformation.
>
>
> Vergon:
>
> No it isn't.
> The gamma factor is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
I thought the 1/ is hidden somewhere in this strange "√".
> Where've you been?
> Another example of your inadequency. Einstein called it the Beta
> factor.
That does not change the fact that this is not the Lorentz
transformation.
Evasion noted.
>>The Lorentz transformation is a transformation of the four coordinates
>>of space-time which leaves the metric invariant.
>
>
> Vergon:
>
> Neither Lorentz nor Fitgerald introduced a time factor.
Wrong. Lorentz discussed time dilation.
> As to
> mentioning the coordinates y and z, what's the point?
> They don't enter into the discussion.
They do. Hint: Lorentz boosts are not always in x direction.
> Small minds get hung up on small matters -- and your mind is of the
> smallest.
Oh, that explains why I managed to get a PhD, right?
> I'm kicking myself in the ass for wasting time with you.
>
> I have just laid before you a tower of logic -- and you are too stupid
> to appreciate it.
Man, you are really full of yourself.
And really totally clueless.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Basics series proposed"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Next in thread: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Reply: V ertner Vergon: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
