| 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] |
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Pentcho Valev wrote:
personalI see no reason for us to abandon the real problem and shift to
mine:qualifications. Here is a quotation from a previous posting of
occur
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Bob, you are right that /5/ below applies to those events that
meanat x=0 and in
this sense my argument is inconclusive, but this still does not
defendthat the
x-containing term in Lorentz second equation is legitimate.
As you can see, I recognize my error but, normally, continue to
my point.
But you ignored his response, in which he identified your repetition
of the same error.
Enough said.