🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 3, 4:02 pm, Angelo <patri...@libero.it> wrote:
> Dear Uncle Al, perhaps you remember our (sporadic, ok)
> exchanges here in Usenet, mainly on (very interesting)
> chemistry topics, which I regret for not having continued.
>
> However, I'm here now to ask some enlightening on what
> you said below.
>
> Uncle Al ha scritto (wrote):
>
> [snip]
>
> > Were there to be internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning
> > inconsistencies of a purely mathematical logical nature) that would
> > automatically lead to contradictions in number theory, itself, and
> > arithmetic, since the mathematics of Minkowski geometry is
> > equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers and with arithmetic.
>
> I think I understand your English, but not enough math & physics
> involved above. Could you please clarify (in whichever manner you
> like, if possible) such contradictions, maybe pointing me out some
> relevant examples?

I don't normally screw up what Uncle Al can
better screw up all by himself but the business
of exploring the chiral anti gravity properties of
stockings worn inside out surely makes immense
demands on his time.  ;-)

I think this might be the sort of expression he
was referring to:

<<... the four-dimensional space-time continuum
of the theory of relativity, in its most essential
formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship
to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean
geometrical space.  In order to give due prominence
to this relationship, however, we must replace
the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary
magnitude

     sqrt(-1)

ct proportional to it. Under these conditions,
the natural laws satisfying the demands of the
(special) theory of relativity assume mathematical
forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same role as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Sue...

>
> Thanks.
> Angelo