Re: SR consistency is crap.
From: eleaticus (eleaticus_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 11/20/04
- Next message: Laura: "Re: E-Publishing for Free! YOU do the work..."
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:09:20 -0600
"Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0411191545.6c047420@posting.google.com...
>
> The problem here is that you don't get that they disagree because the
> measuments by which they assign "lengths" do not have an absolute
> meaning. This just simply has to be taken into account to arrive at
> the proper length of a rod, say. All observers agree on the proper
> length of a rigid rod.
Gee. I wonder if the proper length of a rigid rod might just happen to be
its uncontracted length?
Gee, I wonder if there is an infinite number of idiotic avoidances of SR's
absurb self-contradictions by True Believer SR-cult cretins, as it seems.
eleaticus
>
> Patrick
- Next message: Laura: "Re: E-Publishing for Free! YOU do the work..."
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: This is how it works formally (double entendre) May Day"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: SR consistency is crap."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
