Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down.
From: Randy Poe (poespam-trap_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/08/05
- Next message: Leif Andersson: "What is "Energy""
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- In reply to: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Next in thread: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Reply: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 8 Feb 2005 09:12:52 -0800
Van wrote:
> Don't you think Androcles is right in his claims as he explained
there?
> I do not see any flaws in his deduction or logic.
There's a big difference between this:
(1/2) [( 0,0,0,0 ) + (0,0,0, 20)] = (32, 0,0, 16)
which Androcles keeps saying is a claim of SR, and
the actual equation:
(1/2) [tau( 0,0,0,0 ) + tau(0,0,0, 20)] = tau(32, 0,0, 16)
He seems to be blind to many things, among them the
fact that tau(x-vt, y, z, t) indicates a scalar
function of (x-vt), y, z, t, not the value of the
4-tuple (x,y,z,t).
On a more elementary level, he seems unable to comprehend
that when you say x-vt = 0, you don't mean x = 0. Hence
his insistence that the first argument in those
tau expressions being 0, means something is "at the
origin" at time 0, 16, and 20.
- Randy
- Next message: Leif Andersson: "What is "Energy""
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- In reply to: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Next in thread: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Reply: Van: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
