Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox

ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 11/23/04


Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:59:38 -0800

eleaticus wrote:
>
> "Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:64050551.0411220751.7d18ddb7@posting.google.com...
> > "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<x8wnd.37923$IQ.4849@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
> > > > >
> > > SR is consistent?
> >
> > Yes, it is consistent.
> >
> > Your example assumes that simultaneity is absolute; which is
> > inconsistent with SR. You have assumed your conclusion, which is
> > falacious.
>
> Why go so far out of your way to prove your corrupt cretinism?
>
> Non-absolute simultaneity has no utility when discussing human sized objects
> in impact. If you think it does, then make it ant sized objects.
>
> What a cretin you are!

Jeezzuss! Non absolute simultaneity doesn't have to have "utility"
to explain SR for any size objects. Can you even define "utility"
in the context that you introduced the term into this discussion.

SR predicts non absolute simultaneity and predicts how to relate
measurements made in different frames of reference using relativity
of simultaneity.

If you think that you can disprove this, then show us an experiment
that does so. And don't just claim that it hasn't been done at some
particular scale.

John Anderson



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... >> inconsistent with SR. ... > Why go so far out of your way to prove your corrupt cretinism? ... then make it ant sized objects. ... SR predicts non absolute simultaneity and predicts how to relate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Schwartzneleaticus Paradox
    ... >> inconsistent with SR. ... > Why go so far out of your way to prove your corrupt cretinism? ... then make it ant sized objects. ... SR predicts non absolute simultaneity and predicts how to relate ...
    (sci.math)