How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: eric gisse on 22 May 2010 19:05 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>On May 21, 11:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. >> >>No. >> >>Jerry > > kook fight You were the one who said it, dipshit. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 22 May 2010 22:47 Paul Stowe wrote: [...] >> > Oh, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me how simple it is to >> > create 'random' combinations of physical constants to result in a new >> > expression of a known physical constant. >> >> An arbitrary number of parameters with no constraints can replicate an >> arbitrary number to arbitrary precision. > > Then do it... [...] >> That's ok, Paul. You won't participate in technical discussions that >> don't go your way, so you settle for discussions of semantics and other >> equally non-scientific pursuits, like LET and numerology. Nobody can >> prove you wrong because you don't make testable predictions. Thanks for playing. [...]
From: Paul Stowe on 22 May 2010 22:49 On May 22, 7:47 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > [...] > > >> > Oh, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show me how simple it is to > >> > create 'random' combinations of physical constants to result in a new > >> > expression of a known physical constant. > > >> An arbitrary number of parameters with no constraints can replicate an > >> arbitrary number to arbitrary precision. > > > Then do it... > > [...] > > >> That's ok, Paul. You won't participate in technical discussions that > >> don't go your way, so you settle for discussions of semantics and other > >> equally non-scientific pursuits, like LET and numerology. Nobody can > >> prove you wrong because you don't make testable predictions. > > Thanks for playing. > > [...] All bluff, no substance... Thanks for letting me show other that.
From: Jerry on 23 May 2010 04:50 On May 22, 4:17 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 01:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On May 21, 11:51 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. > > >No. > > >Jerry > > kook fight Hardly. I figured Darwin to be intelligent enough to figure it out on his own, given my one-word answer. Then Paul Andersen gave everything away... YOU, however, in your arrogant stupidity, are not able to figure out ANYTHING on your own, yet you persist in believing in your own brilliance. Which is why I don't bother with you any more. Your belief in yourself has inflated to enormous proportions, even as your mental faculties have steadily deteriorated. We've all seen it happen these last few years. Jerry
From: Inertial on 23 May 2010 08:31
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:HfSdnfox3dNSa2vW4p2dnAA(a)giganews.com... > Inertial wrote: >> [...] >> However, both LET and SR predict that relatively moving observers will >> measure a shorter spatial distance between two events than a co-moving >> observer will measure. > > Not quite. This holds for measuring the length of an object, not for any > arbitrary pair of events. Necessarily when measuring the length of a > moving object in an inertial frame, both ends of the object must be marked > simultaneously in the frame; that cannot be done for an arbitrary pair of > events. Yeup .. fair enough. I'll happily reword that as 'length of object' :):) |