Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #395534
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. |
| Date | 2016-10-13 04:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e688k6F26qqU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <d79a84cb-d65f-4b97-ae2d-001b2c87bd61@googlegroups.com> <e65lkuFdmfoU1@mid.individual.net> <1c2782b5-4afa-4464-97b6-d9db0a201264@googlegroups.com> <e667r3Fhj8nU1@mid.individual.net> <7fd165c3-7698-4555-9243-18b52201656b@googlegroups.com> |
Am 12.10.2016 15:54, schrieb Dono,: >>> You are clueless. the geometry of the Newtonian physics is Euclidian, the geometry of SRT is Lorentzian (Minkowski). Different metrics, different spaces. >> >> >> I would agree to Herman Minkowski's interpretation of relativity, but >> not agree to the one of Einstein. >> > No one cares about the opinions of a crank. > This is actually true. Only: it is not a relevant question, who would agree about a scientific statement. In physics, as science about nature, we have nature itself, who dictates the appropriate description. So there is no requirement for agreement or consensus, since a description about a natural phenomenon is either correct or not. Whether or not scientists /people/ public opinion agree with a certain statement is not relevant for the validity of this statement, since the agreement with the natural phenomenon is, what makes such a statement valid. TH
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Pencho Valev evaluation. donstockbauer@hotmail.com - 2016-10-05 10:23 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 04:31 +0200
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-11 19:46 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-12 09:42 +0200
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 06:54 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-13 04:07 +0200
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 23:33 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2016-10-13 16:05 +0300
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-13 07:21 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:32 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-13 10:01 -0700
Pencho Valev evaluation. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 07:43 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-10-12 18:44 -0700
Re: Pencho Valev evaluation. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:42 -0700
csiph-web