Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: "Whoever" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:43:33 +1000
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1f496de2-f4b2-4017-8971-6e5f119e21c6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 18, 7:01 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dono wrote:
> 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 :-)
Look.
We know that the coordinates of any event must fulfil the equations:
x' = gamma(x - vt)
t' = gamme(t - vx)
from this, it should be pretty obvious that an event is uniquely
defined by specifying any two of the set of coordinates (x,t,x',t'),
it doesn't matter which two, the other two will be determined.
A physical event, contrary to Uncle_Ben's
delusions, requires some volume of space
and some fidelity in the description of
that volume if any rigorous maths follow.
Dono and Fitzpatrick built the tool
that Uncle_Ben claimed to be building.
Uncle_Ben has constructed a tool for
self deception and you can't prevent him
from becoming its only victim. He is
not an demonstrating relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
You've really lost the plot there Sue.
Do you even know the difference between LET an SR .. and do you know in what ways they are the same?
Don't bother answering .. it will just be a copy and paste quote from someone else . .as you don't actually have any knowledge of your own on the subject.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Sue...
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- 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
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Paul B. Andersen
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Sue...
- Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Prev by Date: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Next by Date: Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Previous by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Next by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|