79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 479:
Line 479: − +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 11:22, August 14, 2011
, 11:22, August 14, 2011→A point of view on this article
: That's enough for now. Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
: That's enough for now. Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. I did.
:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. On the other hand, I '''proved''' that momentum is perfectly well defined.
:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?
:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?