Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox
From: John Savard (jsavard_at_excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Storing the summer heat"
- Previous message: MP: "Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox"
- Next in thread: Paul Cardinale: "Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:10:04 GMT
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:24:37 -0600, "eleaticus"
<eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote, in part:
>"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!
Non-absolute simultaniety applies to any object, however small, provided
the impact is sufficiently rapid that the time scale is comparable to
the time it takes for light to travel along the object.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
- Next message: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Storing the summer heat"
- Previous message: MP: "Re: Article: Scientists get their own Google"
- In reply to: eleaticus: "Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox"
- Next in thread: Paul Cardinale: "Re: Schwartz'n'eleaticus Paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
