Re: The Rotating Disk


<e_erpelding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156943782.639946.186930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| You are the one that does not want to discuss the issue, by only giving
| a link to a web page and then starting (somewhat early I might say)
| with the insults.

The issue is that you attempted to use a crackpot childish theory
to claim the fiction of your Dr.Who machine had a basis in
reality, and it doesn't.



|
| The question is, Are there certain non-inertial reference frames such
| that a bounded region of space is physically larger than as seen from
| an inertial (at rest) frame.

NO, there are NOT.

|
| But perhaps you do not understand the rotating disk from a relativistic
| standpoint?

I understand Einstein's relativity, it is a fiction like your time machine.
You do NOT understand that the cuckoo transformations CANNOT
be derived mathematically. You are pissed off because I call Einstein
a shithead, but refuse to discuss the mathematics because
a) you do not understand mathematics,
b) you are childish.


| It is am important example in relativity theory, Landau and Lifshitz
| even start their chapter on gravitation in their book, The Classical
| Theory of Fields, using it as a basic example of a non-inertial
| reference system.
|

Non sequitur, I've shown that the cuckoo transformations
are fiction, I don't give a shit what Landau and Lifshitz
have to say.

| This group, sci.physics.relativity, is the appropriate place to discuss
| the subject.

Yes, but you refused to examine my page because of your prejudice,
and I'm not swallowing your childish *** about a Tardis.

Androcles




.