🚀 go-pugleaf

Phil Carmody wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:09:08 +0000, Rex wrote:
> 
> 
>>Could you please help me with what is wrong with these formulas and the way
>> they are being used?
>> I am not into mathematics and, unfortunately, everytime I see a formula, my
>> eyes glaze over.
>> I know the argument the person is expressing is wrong, but I cannot argue
>> with is formulas although
>> I suspect they are being either misapplied or mistated.
>>
>> I am especially interested in his claim that:
>> "Simple Proof that Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
>> Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of
>> space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is
>> saying is that, if an object moves over any distance x, there is an elapsed
>> time t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change
>> (evolution), the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as
>> v = dt/dt which is self-referential. The self-reference comes from having
>>to
>> divide dt by itself. dt/dt always equals 1 because the units cancel out.
>>This is of course meaningless as far as velocity is concerned."
>>
>> Please reply to:  rbennet9@tampabay.rr.com.
> 
> 
> Can't.
> 
> 
>> One Sentence Proof #1
>> Moving in spacetime is impossible because it requires motion in time and
>> motion in time is self-referential.
> 
> 
> The terms "moving" and "motion" haven't been defined.
> Through the argument out as using undefined terms. Hopefully your
> antagonist will come back with something either inconsistent or
> vacuous. Neither need worry you.
> 

I recognize the work of psychotic sci.physics crackpot Louis
Savain (currently posting as "Traveler"). Presumably the poster
was looking to take down Savain on mathematical grounds.

As you point out, it's too vague to even be wrong.

         - Randy