Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- From: The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:00:07 GMT
In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:42:52 GMT
<gynDg.82039$9d4.41886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g391r3-nln.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
| <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote
| on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:42:40 GMT
| <kohDg.81167$9d4.40226@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
| > in message news:jugDg.17433$i64.421939@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > [anip]
| >
| > x' versus xi?
| > Androcles
|
| Since c = 0, most of the rest of Einstein's logic is moot. We'll just
| have to go back to caveman physics.
You have that wrong, troglodyte, c = 0/0,
Wrong. c = 0. c = (AB+BA)/(t'-t); since t'-t is nonzero and AB+BA is
zero, c = 0.
Or hadn't *that* occurred to you?
Einstein had no logic and neither do you. The dynamics of a variable speed
of light is far more interesting than Einstein's fairy tales or Dork's
misconceptions about the before and after length of a "Lorentz" contracted cuckoo's egg.
True enough. So...what is the distance of Algol, and the orbital
periods of its components? Bear in mind SR gives the *wrong* answer
to this question (since SR is obviously wrong).
Androcles.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- References:
- Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidences for the ether
- Next by Date: Re: the Lorentz transformation.
- Previous by thread: Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- Next by thread: Re: FAREWELL TO PHYSICS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading