| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Stephen Speicher wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, pvalev wrote:
--- Stephen Speicher <sjs@COMPBIO.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:
... argument leading to this chaos amounts to redictio ad
absurdum. Therefore p = 0 is the only reasonable solution
to the problem.
Several people went to the trouble of identifying the error
in your previous formulation, and you have yet to either
refute their argument or acknowledge the error you made. That
being the case, why do you forge ahead with a new
formulation, one which, ubdoubtedly, repeats a similar form
of error as in the prior one?
This is not the case. In my previous postings, I tried to show
that the term px is a "foreign body", called it ILLEGAL etc.
However my arguments were perhaps not very convincing. I hope
my last argument is convincing.
You seem to have missed my point. Previously you made (at least)
one specific error, an error commonly made by those who attempt
the impossible task of trying to demonstrate an internal
inconsistency in special relativity and/or the Lorentz
transformations. Your error was embedded in a large amount of
verbiage, and someone had to invest quite a bit of time and
effort to sift through your formulation in order to identify the
particular form of the error which you made.
However, it appears that you have glossed over what was
identified as an error, and now even attribute your "not very
convincing" argument to something else. And, you follow with
another convoluted formulation attempting to show an
inconsistency in the Lorentz transformation, never dealing with
the error which was identified in the first place. This leads to
a continuing series of assertions on your part, never dealing
directly with the objections presented.
I note that this is the same sort of behavior which you have
employed on other lists, where you have argued against the second
law of thermodynamics and for the existence of a perpetual motion
machine. It is only by ignoring the errors being made that allows
one to continue to voice such arguments.
I see no reason for us to abandon the real problem and shift to personal
qualifications. Here is a quotation from a previous posting of mine:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Bob, you are right that /5/ below applies to those events that occur
at x=0 and in
this sense my argument is inconclusive, but this still does not mean
that the
x-containing term in Lorentz second equation is legitimate.
As you can see, I recognize my error but, normally, continue to defend
my point.