Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Albertito.
On Mar 12, 11:38 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12 mar, 19:07, "Ken S. Tucker"....
Hey we think we have it bad, what about
all them menstural cycles, women of the
opposite sex have. Personally me thinks
the Twin paradox is an easier problem.
Ken
Yeah, you are right :-) I see you are a good
observer, but don't let all that time and cyclical
stuff screw you up. It would have been funnier
if a guy called Einstein would have explained
rigorously and mathematically to us what the
hell is an observer, and what the hell not!
I noticed you had arguments with guys
in this group, the word "observer" is
rather complicated, these days.
Could you provide a definition or a link
that is satisfactory to you?
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.
- References:
- Why I am hard on science
- From: Arthur Knight
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Albertito
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Albertito
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Ken S. Tucker
- Re: Why I am hard on science
- From: Albertito
- Why I am hard on science
- Prev by Date: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Next by Date: Re: invariance of negative signature of the metric?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why I am hard on science
- Next by thread: Re: Why I am hard on science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|