Re: SRT lesson

From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 03/15/05 

Date: 15 Mar 2005 13:01:36 -0800

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1110917597.150742.65860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > aleksandar.vukelja@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I faced a really strange attempt by several posters yesterday to
> > > disprove my ideas, published at http://www.masstheory.org
> > >
> > > As these gentlemen do not know SRT, but claim otherwise, I must
give
> > > them a short lesson.
> >
> > Why bother? You're attempting to construct
> > a field theory so use
> >
> > ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.
> >
> > SR has no applications in *theory*, it's a
> > simplification of limited value in
> > theoretical physics. It's a mere teaching
> > aid for students who understand algebra and
> > a bit of calculus.
> >
> > Einstein formally replaced SR with GR in 1916,
> > by using Minkowski SpaceTime.
> >
> > Dirk's use of 1905 SR is wrong, and leads to
> > many errors, as is evident, that's why it was
> > replaced.
> >
> > Good Luck
> > Ken S. Tucker

[snip Vd crap]
> Dirk Vdm

BULL, Your driving around in your old 1905 SR
clunker, and the rest of physics is driving
post 1916 streamlined GR machines. Your a
pollution hazard!
  Let's see you solve the problem using GR
simplified to SR aka Minkowski SpaceTime, at
least the latter will trade you up to 1908.
Ken

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... > Dirk Van de moortel a écrit: ... > work has been first taken as a hoax in the spirit of Sokal's one, ... > in order to discredit theoretical physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... > Dirk Van de moortel a écrit: ... > work has been first taken as a hoax in the spirit of Sokal's one, ... > in order to discredit theoretical physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast