Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/05/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:33:25 -0000
Eugene Stefanovich:
Bilge:
>> You'll have a great deal of effort trying to find some alternative,
>> since at no time is there a force on the electrons that changes their
>> momentum.
>
>I see a challenge ahead of me, but I trus my theory can overcome that.
I'm sure you can, by redefining momentum and distance to be something
other than what momentum and distance mean to everyone else. You've
already done that anyway, so you might as well make it explicit.
>> The benefit of the doubt ceased when you started misconstruing quotes
>> you reference in order to engage in a semantics debate rather than stick
>> to physics. If you do not understand why the lorentz transforms apply
>> universally to the things which live in spacetime in special relativity,
>> that isn't my problem. I really think you know better, or at least you
>> should know better.
>
>I understand well why "Lorentz transforms apply universally to the
>things which live in spacetime in special relativity".
Then why do you keep arguing that your theory is compatible with
relativity?
>My point is that my theory does not live in spacetime, and my approach
>is different from Einstein's special relativity. Nevertheless, my
>approach is fully relativistic, in the sense I described in a few
>previous posts.
You should try politics in stead of physics. In physics, the goal
is to find an emphasize the differences in two theories, not muddle
the difference for the sake of gaining credibility.
[...]
>> I also am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who
>> cannot (or willnot) express what they are proposing in terms which offer a
>> means of comparison to anything else. You have so far rejected any attempt
>> on my part to apply any concept related to E&M to your theory and you
>> refuse to do it yourself. You claim maaxwell's equations are wrong, yet
>> refuse to accept the differences.
>
>I am happy to discuss and compare experimentally observed consequences
That is completely dishonest. You declined to do just that in the
post to which I responded. If you are going to say something which
is blatantly false, you should save it for the end of your post,
since it becomes the end of your post by default as far as I'm
concerned.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Previous message: Bilge: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Reply: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
