Re: The CMBR falsifies SR


You do have to believe in a magic!

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155920819.998665.187320@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1155672637.135567.13170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb
And this is a definition? At best, it is a phrase which
defines some of its properties.

If you don't like mine, show us yours, then.

I can live without this notion, so I don't have to define it.

You mean you're unwilling to define it, or you cannot.

Suit yourself, you're the one who brought it up, remember? "To
search for an inertial frame you have first to define its meaning."

Seems, the OP has used that notion without definition.

Which you can live without, you say. You require him to provide
a definition but you are not so required. You must be speshul.

Not necessarily. AE put SR out ... He did not ...
Note that he did not say ...

AE's words are irrelevant.

That's your opinion, but I disagree.

Feel free to argue based on authority. I do not
acknowledge such arguments.

I must support my opinions, but not you, eh? Again, you
must be speshul.

We have two theories,
SR and GR, and the expansion of the universe can
be described appropriately only in GR (or other
metric theories of gravity), but not in SR.

No, not so. SR is based on relative motion and the
expansion process is based on observed relative
motion. What more do you want in order to understand
that the cbr is within the domain of applicability of SR?

LOL. Every physical theory is based on the use of math,
every observation is based on the use of math, therefore
every observation is within the domain of applicability
of every physical theory.

Why do you waste your time arguing about something you
cannot or will not defend rationally?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The CMBR falsifies SR
    ... SR is based on relative motion and the ... expansion process is based on observed relative ... Every physical theory is based on the use of math, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The CMBR falsifies SR
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... SR is based on relative motion and the ... Every physical theory is based on the use of math, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... If you want to have the math, ... results after a serious of interactions that brings ... I am sorry if my progress is not as fast ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Superiority of LET over SR!
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... >> postulates, ... >> those same math postulates can be derived, ... physical explanation, for gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Q-basic program for the at theory.
    ... Ilja Schmelzer wrote: ... >that for quantum theory this is not possible. ... The math might be hard. ... >> You mentioned gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast