Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 10/17/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 01:09:52 -0700

"eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Y%gcd.8805$pi7.438@bignews4.bellsouth.net>...
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:41719725.C54F564F@hate.spam.net...
> > Eleaticus wrote:
> > [snip lies]
> >
> > > (SR) Lorentz t', x' = Intervals
> > > (c) Eleaticus/Oren C. Webster
> > > Thnktank@concentric.net
> > [snip 1300 lines of trolled garbage]
> >
> > eleaticus, Oren Webster, is a despised and stooopid troll,
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Crimes.html
> > "Several crimes against logic and science" Ha ha ha!
> >
> > Originally trolled across sci.physics sci.physics.relativity
> > alt.physics sci.math sci.answers alt.answers news.answers
> >
> > Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus,
> >
> > Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
> > mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
> > number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
> > Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
> > and with arithmetic.
>
> Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are
> implicit in SR. It is idiocy at its base.

Liar.

You understand neither Maxwell's equations nor special relativity.

I defy you to find a flaw within SR that doesn't involve jumping
reference frames, inserting Newtonian assumptions, or just being
outside SR's domain of applicibility.

>
> Which is why as the 100th anniversary approaches the basic spatial
> contraction effect has not been found, nor will it have been found at year
> 200, 500,. 1000, etc.

Guess why.

In order to criticise a theory you must first understand it. I will
give you a hint, what is gamma for the fastest we have ever made a
macroscopic object go?

>
> And any True Believer cretins who still exist will still post complete
> irrelevancies such as the links you continue to 'provide'.

Yea. How dare Uncle Al provide references to support his assertions.
Goddamnit Uncle Al, I told you to stop providing references - reading
is hard.

>
> "How dare you say my soups suck!" exclaimed the angry chef, "my peach pie is
> perfect!"
>
> eleaticus

Let me guess, you are going to spawn *yet another* thread about how I
am a liar or something else?

Oh noes!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... >> Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus, ... > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are ... How dare Uncle Al provide references to support his assertions. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... >> Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus, ... > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are ... How dare Uncle Al provide references to support his assertions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... >> Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus, ... > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are ... objects onto a euclidean 3-d subspace of a 4-d minkowski vector space ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... >> Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus, ... > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are ... objects onto a euclidean 3-d subspace of a 4-d minkowski vector space ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uncle assAl: (SR) Lorentz t, x = Intervals
    ... >> Psychotic ineducable boring troll Eleaticus, ... > Yes, indeed, inconsistencies of a purely mathematical LOGICAL nature are ... objects onto a euclidean 3-d subspace of a 4-d minkowski vector space ...
    (sci.math)
Loading