Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:08:53 GMT
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:diba5p0dml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> schoenfeld1@xxxxxxxxx says...
>
> >You need the strong EP to properly describe noninertial
> >frames in Relativity.
>
> No, you don't. You keep repeating this incorrect statement.
> Gravity is the theory of curved spacetime. If your problem
> takes place in *flat* spacetime, then you don't need a theory
> of gravity.
He is still trying to recover from his silly statement at the
beginning of this thread:
| "More precisely, SR can handle accelerated objects if
| and only if the reference frame is inertial."
without having to admit that he was wrong on this.
Since he even maintains that
| "ds^2 = d(ict)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 is positive-definite",
why would he change his mind on the strong EP?
There's nothing we can do about that.
Apparently there's even nothing *he* can do about it either ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: schoenfeld1
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- References:
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: schoenfeld1
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Prev by Date: Re: Sal the crackpot
- Next by Date: Re: The true crackpots
- Previous by thread: Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Next by thread: Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading