Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down.
From: Van (Beethoven.Van_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: how does voltage from a wall plug vary with time"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: This just in: Faith-based Science"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Feb 2005 05:04:00 -0800
Randy Poe wrote:
> Van wrote:
> > Don't you think Androcles is right in his claims as he explained
> there?
> > I do not see any flaws in his deduction or logic.
>
> There's a big difference between this:
>
> (1/2) [( 0,0,0,0 ) + (0,0,0, 20)] = (32, 0,0, 16)
>
> which Androcles keeps saying is a claim of SR, and
> the actual equation:
>
> (1/2) [tau( 0,0,0,0 ) + tau(0,0,0, 20)] = tau(32, 0,0, 16)
>
> He seems to be blind to many things, among them the
> fact that tau(x-vt, y, z, t) indicates a scalar
> function of (x-vt), y, z, t, not the value of the
> 4-tuple (x,y,z,t).
>
> On a more elementary level, he seems unable to comprehend
> that when you say x-vt = 0, you don't mean x = 0. Hence
> his insistence that the first argument in those
> tau expressions being 0, means something is "at the
> origin" at time 0, 16, and 20.
>
> - Randy
I see it now. Thanks Randy.
Apologies to Daryl McCullough.
L. Van
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: how does voltage from a wall plug vary with time"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: This just in: Faith-based Science"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: McCullough is caught with his pants down."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
