Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time. Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.
Line 20: Line 20:  
    
 
    
 
:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent.  In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.''  In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum.  And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
 
:::: See, in relativity, orthogonal doesn't ''mean'' independent.  In relativity, velocity vectors ''do not add.''  In relativity, the effect of a new force is not independent of the object's existing momentum.  And there is nothing illogical about that; it's just a new theory that contradicts the intuition from the previous theory.--[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
 +
 +
::::: Ng, something cannot be independent (orthogonal) and yet dependent at the same time.  Unfortunately, you're arguing with your own theory at this point.  Even most relativity promoters have abandoned the position you take here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:37, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,330

edits

Navigation menu