Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:09:42 +0100
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:22:22 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:26:05 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object will increase and the other decrease.
So what conclusion would any normal person reach Paul?
The obvious one. The observer's observations are observer dependent.
Who gives a stuff about what an observer sees.
So what is 'gamma' Henri? :-)
Gamma is the relativist's incorrect derivation of 1/(1-v/c)
Henri, you are evading the point.
You wrote: "It should be obvious that 'gamma' in relation to one object will increase and the other decrease."
So what you find contradictory is that gamma _in relation to one object_ (observer) is different from gamma _in relation to_ another object (observer).
So what conclusion would any normal person reach, Henri?
The only possible conclusion is the obvious one. The two gammas are different because the two relations to the objects (observers) are different. Gamma is a property of the _relation_.
Why is this so hard to grasp, Henri? You have been told literally hundreds of times during years, and still haven't got it.
What conclusion must a normal person draw from that, Henri?
Paul .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
- From: Hexenmeister
- Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
- Prev by Date: Re: Spaceship Question
- Next by Date: Re: Eistein did not write any theory of gravity
- Previous by thread: Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
- Next by thread: Re: Another Question They Cannot Answer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
