Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber

From: Dono <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:24:54 -0700 (PDT)

On Jun 17, 3:19 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip<

Old fart,

The issue is what does Q(x,t') represent. Hint : nothing meaningful,
just an error in your initial post. It does take about 30-40 posts
from you to finally realize it :-)

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Whoever

References:
- Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: rotchm
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: rotchm
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
  - From: Uncle Ben

Prev by Date: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
Next by Date: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
Previous by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
Next by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread