Re: Wikipedia on mass
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Le Sage's Shadows (was Pioneer anomaly revisited)"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- In reply to: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Next in thread: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Reply: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:52:36 GMT
"harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:1105791623.395736.111090@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> [Bilge to pmb:]
> "What's your point? That we should define a transverse, longitudinal
> and
> relativistic time as well?"
>
> Bilge, relativistic time is commonly written as t. But maybe one day
> soon you will object to that, and propose to write t for tau... (let's
> wait and see).
>
> [Bilge next wrote the astonishing phrase:]
> "since the only mass which can be a scalar of any sort,
> is the invariant mass. A scalar can't point along any axis."
>
> Dear Bilge, here you made a remark that is nearly identical to the
> piece of text that caused this thread - and which several people
> understood differently!
> You implied that relativistic mass "isn't a scalar" because "it points
> along an axis", right?
Harry, are you serious?
You are trolling, right?
Dirk Vdm
> Then please explain what you mean with those two things.
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
- Next message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Le Sage's Shadows (was Pioneer anomaly revisited)"
- Previous message: PD: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- In reply to: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Next in thread: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Reply: harry: "Re: Wikipedia on mass"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
