The absolute frame.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Aug 2010 20:01 "Hayek" wrote in message news:4c642eba$0$22937$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >eric gisse wrote: >> Hayek wrote: >>> Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the >>> first case is true. So you say people who understand claim there is an absolute frame (which is what your first case entailed) >> Anyone who advocates that SR says that there is an absolute frame does >> not know what they are talking about. > I did not say that, You said fanatics of SR claim there is an absolute frame. Eric is correct. So do YOU advocate SR. Or do you think SR is wrong? >but hey, I am not even expecting that you can understand a sentence. You don't seem to realise what you wrote.
From: BURT on 12 Aug 2010 20:38 On Aug 12, 5:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Hayek" wrote in messagenews:4c642eba$0$22937$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl.... > >eric gisse wrote: > >> Hayek wrote: > >>> Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the > >>> first case is true. > > So you say people who understand claim there is an absolute frame (which is > what your first case entailed) > > >> Anyone who advocates that SR says that there is an absolute frame does > >> not know what they are talking about. > > I did not say that, > > You said fanatics of SR claim there is an absolute frame. > > Eric is correct. > > So do YOU advocate SR. Or do you think SR is wrong? > > >but hey, I am not even expecting that you can understand a sentence. > > You don't seem to realise what you wrote. Maybe he's a blind writer. If SR is right why is the relative motion in the opposite direction? And shrinking into the distance? Mitch Raemsch
From: eric gisse on 13 Aug 2010 06:30
Hayek wrote: > eric gisse wrote: >> Hayek wrote: >> >>>>> 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute >>>>> frame. >> [...] >>>>> SR-ians can make funny claims, >>>> What are "SR-ians"? Do you mean people who used to be >>>> described as "geometers" in journals such as Nature? >>> Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the >>> first case is true. >> >> Anyone who advocates that SR says that there is an absolute frame does >> not know what they are talking about. > > I did not say that, but hey, I am not even expecting > that you can understand a sentence. Did I misquote you? > > Uwe Hayek. > |