Re: Slabinski and Mingst/Stowe disagree in Pushing Gravity

Strael Nosduj:
>On Sun, 01 May 2005 Paul Stowe wrote:
>> Great! Now provide the references to the post(s) that contain any
>> technical content of refutation.
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/
>c7bca3bd38b03b69
>
>>> The page I referred you to is called Omni-Directional Flux.
>> I know.... Slabinki does a much more concise job than that page.
>
>So now your objection to the referenced page is that it's not as
>concise as it could be? That's certainly possible, but from the
>standpoint of someone like yourself (i.e., someone who has no clue
>about how to even begin thinking about the subject), one would think
>you would actually benefit more from a less concise presentation, one
>that explains the reasoning behind each step.

I think paul's idea of concise means something that doesn't contain
any math he can't follow -- especially equations accompanied by
explanations that justify them. Unfortuntely, that seems to be anything
more complex than basic algebra. The only way to make something concise
enough for paul is to remove all of the physics so he can work on
a semantic argument.


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast