Physics is a quantitative science !!!
Y.Porat
physics is and should be
a quantitative science
iow
anything in it must be able to be defined quantitatively (and not only
qualitatively
if so
please tell us
WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE*
*MATHEMATICAL* WAY -
TO DEFINE EXACTLY - THE RELATIVITY OF
A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------
GogoJF
Exactly. I have argued that experiments such as Fizeau's toothed-
wheel experiments attribute all time to be contained in the distance
the light signal travels- and zero time attributed to the bouncing of
a incoming and reversing of the light signal at distant mirror B.
Where is the hard physics here?
rotchm
> WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE*
> *MATHEMATICAL* WAY -
> TO DEFINE EXACTLY - THE RELATIVITY OF
> A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
You have lost yourself in ~ 30 replies in the previous thread, so
you are starting a new one !!!
There is no unique definition of 'relativistic' nor of the expression
'the relativity of...'.
Those words depends on context and authors.
Since *you* are the initiator of these words in this thread, *you*
define them.
If you want to know the meaning of those words in a particular book,
ask the author or learn how to deduce the intended meaning within a
context.
xwatch
i hope iknow inertia...
Y.Porat
-------------------
dont you agree that
physics is a quantitative science ??
if quantitative then:
show us the *mathematical term* to define
(if at all !!!)
how much (quantitatively )
the constant c
is relativistic ??!!
in physics science
abstract hand waving is not enough
you must be exact ond *** quantitative *
( frankly -
dont you see that my question is
a rhetoric question ??
with an obviious answer for sane
rational honest people ??)
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------
rotchm
> dont you agree that
> physics is a quantitative science ??
Lets not change the subject which consist of the meaning of
'relativistic'.
> show us the *mathematical term* to define
> (if at all !!!)
> how much (quantitatively )
> the constant c
> is relativistic ??!!
Since *you* are invoking the word 'relativistic', please explain/
define what *you* mean by that word.
> in physics science
> abstract hand waving is not enough
> you must be exact ond *** quantitative *
Can you translate that into english?
> ( frankly -
> dont you see that my question is
> a rhetoric question ??
> with an obviious answer for sane
> rational honest people ??)
Yes, and the sane rational people answered you, yet you still scream
out the question.
Y.Porat
----------------
they didint aswer
they hand waved
and you ddint answer !!
as i told you and you have to agree or not agree:
that is physics a quantitative science ??
th e answer must be quantitative
IF
the answer must be QUANTITATIVE !!
i could stop at this point
but i will add( independent on the above
un answered question:
2
relativity is about
comparing some physical entity
in one frame --
---with that entity in a moving frame!!
ie comparing it in two frames!!
THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
WHY?
i will let that question to other people
because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
so l let other people to explain why----
------**th e photon momentum hf/c
cannot be compared in two frames !!**
(realy an orriginal argument
that apparently not written i any parrots text book yet still a
right argument)
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
artful
> As we all know and admit is that
> physics is and should be
> a quantitative science
Yes it is .. despite your deliberate ignorance of experimental
evidence that contradicts you (eg that photon energy is given by E =
hf)
> iow
> anything in it must be able to be defined quantitatively (and not only
> qualitatively
Yes indeed.
> if so
> please tell us
> WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE*
> *MATHEMATICAL* WAY -
> TO DEFINE EXACTLY - THE RELATIVITY OF
> A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
There is no 'relativity of' operator in physics to define
mathematically.
However, those words appear in particular well-defined concepts/terms
such as 'relativity of simultaneity'
If you are referring to the adjective 'relativistic', then that is
usually used on concepts and formulas that are different in classical
physics as opposed to the physics of relativity. eg Relativistic
Doppler is the the Doppler effect as it applies to light in
relativity, and there is a relativistic Doppler formula which is
different to the classical Doppler formula .. hence we use the
adjective 'relativistic' to emphasize that it is the Doppler formula
from relativity to which we are referring.
Some terms and concepts in relativity do not need the 'relativistic'
adjective to distinguish them, or the adjective is often dropped or
assumed in context (eg "relativistic length contraction" is often just
call "length contraction")
> TIA
You're welcome, though as usual you will probably just do your usual
name calling and insults and ignore everything I'm trying to help you
with .. why I even bother with you is beyond me .. but its more for
those unfortunate enough to read your posts who may like to know the
correct answers.
BURT
A new challenge art:
What is the Doppler shift to light when absorbed by matter sideways to
its motion? as opposed to from ahead or behind?
I claim there is no energy shift.
It will be a hit in science.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
LIAR
> they hand waved
No .. I gave very clear answers including dictionary references
> and you ddint answer !!
LIAR
> as i told you and you have to agree or not agree:
>
> that is physics a quantitative science ??
Yes it is. Despite your hand-wavings about things like "circlons" and
no mass no real physics etc. You can't handle the math.
> th e answer must be quantitative
Depends on whether it is a quantitative question.
You asked what 'realtivistic' means .. that is a question about a word
meaning, not math. I told you and gave you dictionary references
You asked for a mathematical meaning of 'relativity of' .. and I told
you that it does not HAVE a mathematical meaning because there is no
'realativty of' operator, but it does have meaning as part of phrases
like 'relativity of simultaneity' (the only one I can think of atm)
> IF
> the answer must be QUANTITATIVE !!
> i could stop at this point
Good. Do so. You're wasting everyone's time by asking questions that
you do NOT want answers to
> but i will add( independent on the above
> un answered question:
>
> 2
> relativity is about
> comparing some physical entity
> in one frame --
> ---with that entity in a moving frame!!
> ie comparing it in two frames!!
Not necessarily .. but that it does describe what will happen if you
do.
eg you can compare the speed of light in two frames .. relativity
tells you the speed will be c in both. the speed of light being a
constant (c) is a relativistic concept.
> THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
> CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
Of course you can compare photon momentums in different frames, and it
is different in two frames. Though for a PARTICULAR photon, once you
measure it, it is destroyed .. but you can measure identical photons
from the same source in multiple frames.
> WHY?
> i will let that question to other people
> because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
In other words you don't know.
> so l let other people to explain why----
> ------**th e photon momentum hf/c
> cannot be compared in two frames !!**
> (realy an orriginal argument
> that apparently not written i any parrots text book yet still a
> right argument)
You don't know what a right answer is .. you ignore them. Hence you
are a moron.
Y.Porat
> On Aug 25, 1:57 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 5:01 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > dont you agree that
> > > > physics is a quantitative science ??
>
> > > Lets not change the subject which consist of the meaning of
> > > 'relativistic'.
>
> > > > show us the *mathematical term* to define
> > > > (if at all !!!)
> > > > how much (quantitatively )
> > > > the constant c
> > > > is relativistic ??!!
answer that question pigshit anonymous
how much **quantitatively** is c in a second frame
different from the original frame ??
just answer simply and shortly !!
2
the fact that relativity is using a physical entity
DOES NOT MAN THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY RELATIVISTIC!!
QUITE THE OPOSITE
EVEN RELATIVITY TELL SYOU THAT c OF THER ORRIGINAL FRAME
IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN
THE SECONDARY FRAME
SO THERE I S NO DIFFERENCE
WHATSOEVER BETWEEN
THOSE c AND 'c SECONDARY!!
identity is not relativistic from the physical entity point of view !!
quite the opposite
identity is the opposite of relative
2
if the relative theory uses the x
(multiplication sign )
in its formula
to morow the crook anonymous retard shameless pig
will say that
the multiplication sign is relativistic since it is used by
relativity !!
------------------------------------
will there be an end
for those ganster moron pig behavior ??
it has to be don by intervention of cleaver honest responsible people
not to leave it to a solid group
of a few gangsters gang!!
like just one anonymous of them
with at least 3 different names !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
artful
> On Aug 25, 6:12 am, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 1:57 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 25, 5:01 am, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > dont you agree that
> > > > > physics is a quantitative science ??
>
> > > > Lets not change the subject which consist of the meaning of
> > > > 'relativistic'.
>
> > > > > show us the *mathematical term* to define
> > > > > (if at all !!!)
> > > > > how much (quantitatively )
> > > > > the constant c
> > > > > is relativistic ??!!
> > ------------------------------
>
> answer that question pigshit anonymous
I did. You ignored it. Your bad.
There is no "mathematical term" involved. 'Relativistic' is an
adjective .. a word. It has particular meanings. You want to find
out what the meanings of it are, then you look it up in the
appropriate dictionary.
> how much **quantitatively** is c in a second frame
> different from the original frame ??
It isn't different at all. And *THAT* is what is 'relativistic' about
it. Relativity says the speed of light will be the same in all
frames. Classical physics says it will not. 'Relativistic' means 'to
do with relativity' .. c being a constant in all frames is a VERY much
to do with relativity.
> just answer simply and shortly !!
I have .. multiple times .. you just don't read and hurl insults
instead.
> 2
> the fact that relativity is using a physical entity
What physical entity?
> DOES NOT MAN THAT IT IS PHYSICALLY RELATIVISTIC!!
Please define "PHYSICALLY RELATIVISTIC" and give a reference to a
dictionary or text that agrees with your definition. Otherwise you
YELLING it at me is pointless as it is a meaningless phrase.
> QUITE THE OPOSITE
> EVEN RELATIVITY TELL SYOU THAT c OF THER ORRIGINAL FRAME
> IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN
> THE SECONDARY FRAME
Of course it does. I've been telling you that.
> SO THERE I S NO DIFFERENCE
> WHATSOEVER BETWEEN
> THOSE c AND 'c SECONDARY!!
Of course there isn't. That's what SR says. There being different
values for c for different frames is classical physics .. being the
same value is a relativistic.
> identity is not relativistic from the physical entity point of view !!
> quite the opposite
> identity is the opposite of relative
No .. absolute is the opposite of relative.
But regardless .. that has nothing to directly to do with the word
'relativistic'.
> 2
> if the relative theory uses the x
> (multiplication sign )
> in its formula
> to morow the crook anonymous retard shameless pig
> will say that
> the multiplication sign is relativistic since it is used by
> relativity !!
No .. I'm not a moron like you. multiplication is not 'to do with
relativity' .. but 'the speed of light is the same constant in all
frames' IS to do with relativity.
> ------------------------------------
> will there be an end
> for those ganster moron pig behavior ??
Not until you stop posting (seeing you are the gangster moron pig)
> it has to be don by intervention of cleaver honest responsible people
Like me. That's the only reason I bother. And the word is 'clever'
not 'cleaver'. Gees.
> not to leave it to a solid group
> of a few gangsters gang!!
There's just you
> like just one anonymous of them
> with at least 3 different names !!!
Blah blah blah
Y.Porat
> On Aug 25, 11:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As we all know and admit is that
> > physics is and should be
> > a quantitative science
>
> Yes it is .. despite your deliberate ignorance of experimental
> evidence that contradicts you (eg that photon energy is given by E =
> hf)
>
> > iow
> > anything in it must be able to be defined quantitatively (and not only
> > qualitatively
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> > if so
> > please tell us
> > WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE*
> > *MATHEMATICAL* WAY -
> > TO DEFINE EXACTLY - THE RELATIVITY OF
> > A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
>
> There is no 'relativity of' operator in physics to define
> mathematically.
SHAMELESS lier
the gamma factor is the relativistic
mathematical
QUANTITATIVE tool for defining thje
relativistic entlty !!
and it does not apply to the photons AT ALL !!!
-------------------
>
>
> If you are referring to the adjective 'relativistic', then that is
> usually used on concepts and formulas that are different in classical
> physics as opposed to the physics of relativity.
CROOK
we dont deal in WORTHY physics
in calling name linguistic terms
we deal with
QUANTITATIVE FORMULA !!!
-------------------------
eg Relativistic
> Doppler is the the Doppler effect as it applies to light in
> relativity,
------------------
lier !!!
hf has nothing to do with relativity
it was NOT stemming from relativity
it was found experimentally
without relativity
just another little additional sign is
that HF
IS A LINEAR FORMULA!!
as far as i know there are no linear formula in relativity !!
--------------
not anything that a relativistic formula uses
is AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS ENTITY
THAT IS CHEAP stupid DEMAGOGISM!! ---
::
the relativity is using the x multiplier in its formula
so
tomorrow the crook demagoge will say that the x multiplier is
relativistic
since it served a relativistic formula !!!
--------------
that hf alone is good enough to prove that the photon mas mass
that has nothing to do with relativistic ,mass!!
2
if hf has nothing to do with relativity
even the dopler effect
FOR PHOTONS !!
has nothing to do with relativity !!
not anything that any moronm is calling realtivistic is relativistic
the same withthe exagerater use of the pompous pose talking about
the magic word * quantum*
whether it is justified or not !!!
--------------
the Doppler of photons STEMS FROM THE FACT
THAT
hf
is not the formula
of one photon
but a huge number of photons !!
and we proved it many times
not for idiots crooks parrots
soi am not going to it now
------------------------------
if the secondary frame
is running away from the orriginal one
so the secondary frame will be hit by less photon per second
than were created in the orriginal frame
and
evenin that secondary frame
the energy of the penetrationg photons
remain linear hf2
with a CONSTANT VELOCITY c
and stil has nothing to do with relativity
but experimentally found
withouttheneed of relativity at all
UNLESS the secondary frame
is a big mass
that abides the **gamma factor**
that determines the velocity
of the big massive frame !!!
( it aplies to the big massive frame
but does not apply again to the photon moving in that big secondary
frame !!!
of wich the gamma factor does not apply to photons
and mind you our above issue now is dealing with photons !!)
Y.P
------------------------------
Y.Porat
> > > ------------------------------
>
> > answer that question pigshit anonymous
>
> I did. You ignored it. Your bad.
>
> There is no "mathematical term" involved. 'Relativistic'
----------------
pigshit lier
you cheat
th e gamma fasctor is the term that SR is using
it is a mathenatical term
so
if c is exactly c in the secondary frame
and is constant
then how can you say pigshit
that it is relativistic to ***itself !!*** (:-)
and you think that all people here are idiots !!
the only relativistic to itsef can be only in
3 anonymous names
that are identical or smell like PD
so let ne show you something about that
GANGSTERS GANG
ie PD CO .limited
that appear as an innocent lamb
clean hands just academy science minded
from PD profile :
quote
-------------------
==============================
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-206-208-104-0-1
OrgName: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
OrgId: HOUGH-3
Address: 222 Berkeley Street
City: Boston
StateProv: MA
PostalCode: 02116
Country: US
RegDate: 2009-05-21
Updated: 2009-05-21
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/HOUGH-3
OrgTechHandle: JPB95-ARIN
OrgTechName: Baker, Jonathan Peter
OrgTechPhone: +1-617-351-3822
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1-617-351-3822
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
OrgTechEmail:
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JPB95-ARIN
end of quote
=====================================
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------
artful
> On Aug 25, 6:04 am, artful <artful...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 11:47 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As we all know and admit is that
> > > physics is and should be
> > > a quantitative science
>
> > Yes it is .. despite your deliberate ignorance of experimental
> > evidence that contradicts you (eg that photon energy is given by E =
> > hf)
>
> > > iow
> > > anything in it must be able to be defined quantitatively (and not only
> > > qualitatively
>
> > Yes indeed.
>
> > > if so
> > > please tell us
> > > WHAT IS THE **QUANTITATIVE*
> > > *MATHEMATICAL* WAY -
> > > TO DEFINE EXACTLY - THE RELATIVITY OF
> > > A PHYSICAL ENTITY ??
>
> > There is no 'relativity of' operator in physics to define
> > mathematically.
>
> -----------------------
> SHAMELESS lier
That's you. I don't lie.
> the gamma factor is the relativistic
> mathematical
> QUANTITATIVE tool for defining thje
> relativistic entlty !!
Nope. Though it does appear in some relativistic equations. Simply
multiplying something by gamma does not magically make it a
relativistic quantity (though in some cases one does).
You are confused in thinking 'realtivistic' means 'multuiplied by
gamma'. That's nonsense.
> and it does not apply to the photons AT ALL !!!
Irrelevant
> -------------------
>
> > If you are referring to the adjective 'relativistic', then that is
> > usually used on concepts and formulas that are different in classical
> > physics as opposed to the physics of relativity.
>
> ---------------------
> CROOK
Fuckwit
> we dont deal in WORTHY physics
> in calling name linguistic terms
Eh? You don't make sense, moron
> we deal with
> QUANTITATIVE FORMULA !!!
I know .. and there is no quantitative formula called 'relativity
of'. Its just a pair of words that are used in some well defined
phrases/concepts in physics.
> -------------------------
> eg Relativistic> Doppler is the the Doppler effect as it applies to light in
> > relativity,
>
> ------------------
> lier !!!
Nope
> hf has nothing to do with relativity
I didn't say it was
> it was NOT stemming from relativity
> it was found experimentally
> without relativity
And you deny the results of that experiment, moron
> just another little additional sign is
> that HF
> IS A LINEAR FORMULA!!
Yes it is .. linear on frequency
> as far as i know there are no linear formula in relativity !!
You don't know anything
> --------------
> not anything that a relativistic formula uses
> is AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES A RELATIVISTIC PHYSICS ENTITY
> THAT IS CHEAP stupid DEMAGOGISM!! ---
I never claimed it was
> ::
> the relativity is using the x multiplier in its formula
> so
> tomorrow the crook demagoge will say that the x multiplier is
> relativistic
> since it served a relativistic formula !!!
> --------------
That's your nonsense idea .. not mine
> that hf alone is good enough to prove that the photon mas mass
relativistic mass .. yes
> that has nothing to do with relativistic ,mass!!
Wrong. the formula you use for working out mass (dividing momentum by
speed) is the definition of RELATIVISTIC (or INERTIAL) mass
> 2
> if hf has nothing to do with relativity
That's your claim
> even the dopler effect
> FOR PHOTONS !!
> has nothing to do with relativity !!
Wrong
> not anything that any moronm is calling realtivistic is relativistic
> the same withthe exagerater use of the pompous pose talking about
> the magic word * quantum*
> whether it is justified or not !!!
> --------------
Word salad .. try again to say something with meaning
> the Doppler of photons STEMS FROM THE FACT
> THAT
> hf
> is not the formula
> of one photon
But it is .. shown experimentally. You're a moron
And hf has NOTHING to do with relativistic doppler
> but a huge number of photons !!
> and we proved it many times
Never
> not for idiots crooks parrots
> soi am not going to it now
Because you can't and never have
> ------------------------------
>
> if the secondary frame
> is running away from the orriginal one
> so the secondary frame will be hit by less photon per second
Which is a Doppler effect .. derrrrr.
> than were created in the orriginal frame
And those photons will also have less energy for each of them
> and
> evenin that secondary frame
> the energy of the penetrationg photons
> remain linear hf2
> with a CONSTANT VELOCITY c
> and stil has nothing to do with relativity
Wrong
> but experimentally found
> withouttheneed of relativity at all
Something being found experimentally does NOT mean it isn't
relativsitic
> UNLESS the secondary frame
> is a big mass
> that abides the **gamma factor**
BAHAHAHA
> that determines the velocity
> of the big massive frame !!!
> ( it aplies to the big massive frame
>
> but does not apply again to the photon moving in that big secondary
> frame !!!
> of wich the gamma factor does not apply to photons
>
> and mind you our above issue now is dealing with photons !!)
You're a moron. Fuck off
Y.Porat
-------------------
NWA
Y.Porat
---------------------
David Thomson
> show us the *mathematical term* to define
> (if at all !!!)
> how much (quantitatively )
> the constant c
> is relativistic ??!!
>
> in physics science
> abstract hand waving is not enough
> you must be exact ond *** quantitative *
I agree with your position. Sprecial Relativity is not science as
much as it is psychology. Special Relativity is all about perception
of reality, and not about reality itself. The appearance of time
dilation, mass increase, and other nonsense is not the same thing as a
real effect. A movie is not the same thing as the real world even
though it might look the same. As for the issue of real time
dilation, even Special Relativity theory depends on the speed of c
being the same for both observers. So no matter what they might
imagine someone else is seeing, each actual observer will only see no
time dilation.
BURT
If a clock appears to tick slower how can it be the one that ages
more? NO Only one twin gets older faster.
When the twins see each other the stay at home twin's clock is going
faster than the traveler always. You see the difference instead of
seeing a paradox.
Mitch Raemsch
artful
> On Aug 24, 9:49 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > show us the *mathematical term* to define
> > (if at all !!!)
> > how much (quantitatively )
> > the constant c
> > is relativistic ??!!
>
> > in physics science
> > abstract hand waving is not enough
> > you must be exact ond *** quantitative *
>
> I agree with your position.
I agree also that it must be quantitative .. not with the rest of
Porat's nonsense.
> Sprecial Relativity is not science
Wrong
> as
> much as it is psychology.
There is NO psychology in relativity. I think you are confusing it
with relativism
> Special Relativity is all about perception
> of reality, and not about reality itself.
Wrong
> The appearance of time
> dilation, mass increase, and other nonsense is not the same thing as a
> real effect.
Yes .. it IS a real effect. Clocks really do run slower .. we have
tested that experimentally
> A movie is not the same thing as the real world even
> though it might look the same.
Irrelevant
> As for the issue of real time
> dilation, even Special Relativity theory depends on the speed of c
> being the same for both observers.
No evidence of it ever not being c (in vacuo)
> So no matter what they might
> imagine someone else is seeing, each actual observer will only see no
> time dilation.
Wrong
I suggest you LEARN what Sr actually says before you make yourself
appear almost as foolish as Porat (though at least as not a nasty and
rude and accusative and agressive)
artful
> On Aug 25, 1:38 pm, David Thomson <peacema...@volantis.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 9:49 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > show us the *mathematical term* to define
> > > (if at all !!!)
> > > how much (quantitatively )
> > > the constant c
> > > is relativistic ??!!
>
> > > in physics science
> > > abstract hand waving is not enough
> > > you must be exact ond *** quantitative *
>
> > I agree with your position. Sprecial Relativity is not science as
> > much as it is psychology. Special Relativity is all about perception
> > of reality, and not about reality itself. The appearance of time
> > dilation, mass increase, and other nonsense is not the same thing as a
> > real effect. A movie is not the same thing as the real world even
> > though it might look the same. As for the issue of real time
> > dilation, even Special Relativity theory depends on the speed of c
> > being the same for both observers. So no matter what they might
> > imagine someone else is seeing, each actual observer will only see no
> > time dilation.
>
> If a clock appears to tick slower how can it be the one that ages
> more?
If one clock is slower than the other .. then that is *exactly* what
you would expect for one to age less than the other. So your question
is moot.
> NO
'NO' is not an answer to a 'how can it be' question
>Only one twin gets older faster.
The one that changes frames of reference .. that's what makes for
difference in aging.
> When the twins see each other the stay at home twin's clock is going
> faster than the traveler always.
If you mean what they would actually *see* (eg a video link between
them so each can see the other's clocks), then that is not the case.
Doppler effect says that when the travelling twin is coming back
toward the stay at home twin, that each will see the other's clock as
ticking faster. They will only see each other's clocks (on the video
link) as ticking slower when they move away from each other.
Note that classical physics says the same qualitatively (but predicts
other differences)
> You see the difference instead of
> seeing a paradox.
There is no paradox .. only in the minds of those who don't
understand. There is a difference in aging when the twins have
different velocity profiles, and it is the same as what relativity
predicts
Y.Porat
-------------------
Thank you David!!
i nearly lost hope that there are still
cleaver and more important HONEST PEOPLE
here !!
and started to worry tha there are here
only shamless gangsters or parrots
2
it is extremely important to make some advance in modern science !!
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------
artful
Its "clever", you moron
> and more important HONEST PEOPLE
But you already know that I am here .. and I am always honest
> here !!
> and started to worry tha there are here
> only shamless gangsters or parrots
There are a few like you here, yes.
> 2
> it is extremely important to make some advance in modern science !!
Shame you never will. But fortunately, there are physicists who do.
Y.Porat
============
go fuck yourself with
Josef Goebbels
your end is the same ..
you cant cheat every body forever !!.
Y.P
--------------------
artful
Porat's answer to everything:
> go fuck yourself with
> Josef Goebbels
Of course, I'm not interested in your particular perverted fantasies.
But, as I said .. you should get used to sex with dead people, because
you'll be one soon enough.
> your end is the same ..
My end? Do you mean my arse? I think it does look and smell the same
as you probably do :) The same sort of stuff comes out of it as you
post here too.
> you cant cheat every body forever !!.
I've not cheated anybody .. unlike you with your continual false
allegation and lies.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There would be a paradox if both clocks see the other going slow.
This does not happen. The fast moving twin is the only one with slow
time and it will be seen that way by everyone.
Mitch Raemsch
Y.Porat
> > > > > dilation, even Special Relativity theory depends on the speed of c
> > > > > being the same for both observers. So no matter what they might
> > > > > imagine someone else is seeing, each actual observer will only see no
> > > > > time dilation.
>
> > > > -------------------
> > > > Thank you David!!
>
> > > > i nearly lost hope that there are still
> > > > cleaver
>
> > > Its "clever", you moron
>
> > > > and more important HONEST PEOPLE
>
> > > But you already know that I am here .. and I am always honest
you have a very good idea about yourself !
if not you than who ??!!
(:-)
--------------------------
>
> > > > here !!
> > > > and started to worry tha there are here
> > > > only shamless gangsters or parrots
>
> > > There are a few like you here, yes.
>
> > > > 2
> > > > it is extremely important to make some advance in modern science !!
>
> > > Shame you never will. But fortunately, there are physicists who do.
>
> > ============
>
> Porat's answer to everything:
>
> > go fuck yourself with
> > Josef Goebbels
>
> Of course, I'm not interested in your particular perverted fantasies.
> But, as I said .. you should get used to sex with dead people, because
> you'll be one soon enough.
>
> > your end is the same ..
>
>
> allegation and lies.
in any case Mr Shitful
even Goebbels
ddint have 3 false anonymous names
at least was a bit more brave
and honest even compared to you
and actually you are not all anonymous
you have some friends
see that:
--------------
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-206-208-104-0-1
OrgName: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
OrgId: HOUGH-3
Address: 222 Berkeley Street
City: Boston
StateProv: MA
PostalCode: 02116
Country: US
RegDate: 2009-05-21
Updated: 2009-05-21
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/HOUGH-3
OrgTechHandle: JPB95-ARIN
OrgTechName: Baker, Jonathan Peter
OrgTechPhone: +1-617-351-3822
begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1-617-351-3822
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
OrgTechEmail:
OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JPB95-ARIN
================
end of quote
Y.P
---------------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
Thanks
Y.Porat
-------------------------
artful
We know who you are.
> even Goebbels
> ddint have 3 false anonymous names
He didn't post on internet forums with mentally unstable paranoid
creeps like you around
I have been completely open and honest about my use of the three names
on the three servers I use for accessing newsgroups (depending on my
location)
> at least was a bit more brave
> and honest even compared to you
Nope.
> and actually you are not all anonymous
Eh? Not all? There is only one of me
> you have some friends
> see that:
>
> --------------
> Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-206-208-104-0-1
>
> OrgName: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company
> OrgId: HOUGH-3
> Address: 222 Berkeley Street
> City: Boston
> StateProv: MA
> PostalCode: 02116
> Country: US
> RegDate: 2009-05-21
> Updated: 2009-05-21
> Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/HOUGH-3
>
> OrgTechHandle: JPB95-ARIN
> OrgTechName: Baker, Jonathan Peter
> OrgTechPhone: +1-617-351-3822
> begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1-617-351-3822
> end_of_the_skype_highlighting
> OrgTechEmail:
> OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JPB95-ARIN
> ================
> end of quote
Is there some point to that information? Other than you making
libelous claims that that company steals ideas from other and
publishes them as its own. I hope with all my heart that they sue
your for all you have.
Y.Porat
> > OrgTechRef: http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/JPB95-ARIN
> > ================
> > end of quote
>
> Is there some point to that information? Other than you making
> libelous claims that that company steals ideas from other and
> publishes them as its own. I hope with all my heart that they sue
> your for all you have.
--------------
i would like to see
PD (Paul Draper) suing me
accusing him
STEALING MY BOOK:!!!!
'A MODEL OF THE ATOM
AND THE NUCLEUS ''!!
let him do it !!
i will be glad to bring it to court !!!
and btw]
if i am not wrong
to be a member of a
PRIVATE publishing company
and taking part in controversial
innovative discussions here
without adding **at any post**
a disclaimer about his business interests
is not against the rules of this ng !!!??!!!!!!
not to speak about the rules or ethics of science !!!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
artful
So would I
> accusing him
>
> STEALING MY BOOK:!!!!
You make lots of accusations. It would be a pleasant change to see
one that was valid and backed up with facts. I am assuming you have
evidence that PD came to your property and stole a book belonging to
you? If not, how was it stolen from you?
> 'A MODEL OF THE ATOM
> AND THE NUCLEUS ''!!
>
> let him do it !!
I wish he would. Or rather, the company he works for should after you
accused them of stealing other peoples ideas to publish as their own.
> i will be glad to bring it to court !!!
No .. you wouldn't. You'd end up in gaol, or at least with a
significant legal bill.
> and btw]
> if i am not wrong
>
> to be a member of a
> PRIVATE publishing company
Why do you think it is important that it is a PRIVATE company?
> and taking part in controversial
> innovative discussions here
> without adding **at any post**
> a disclaimer about his business interests
> is not against the rules of this ng !!!??!!!!!!
Is is indeed not against any rules .. of anything. There is no need,
legally or ethically, to disclose what company PD happens to work
for. It has absolutely zero significance, despite all your bluster.
> not to speak about the rules or ethics of science !!!
You don't know anything of ethics .. your behavior here shows that.
Y.Porat
----------------
it seems more and more that
Artful is actually name
No 4 of Paul Draper (:-)!!
Y.P
----------------------------
Inertial
news:7beef00e-20f0-48be...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
>it seems more and more that
>Artful is actually name
>No 4 of Paul Draper (:-)!!
Only in your depraved imagination, moron. I note you failed to produce any
evidence of PD staling anything from anyone .. as usual your accusations are
groundless and libellous.
Y.Porat
----------------
waht the fuck is it your bussiness??
jsut proving that you are actually
Paul Draper with a mask of anonymous
2
i have written proves that he stole it from me
a
he (you !!) admitted he got it
b
he (actually you ) could not prove that i ever gave it to him
with my personal dedication
as i did and do on any copy that i send !!
he got only a copy of it yet without my permission-
it is a crime !!
c
while it is still copyrighted !!
BYE shameless sub human being gangster
Y.P
------------------------------------
Inertial
news:433fcb46-b7db-4186...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 27, 3:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>>
>> news:7beef00e-20f0-48be...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >it seems more and more that
>> >Artful is actually name
>> >No 4 of Paul Draper (:-)!!
>>
>> Only in your depraved imagination, moron. I note you failed to produce
>> any
>> evidence of PD staling anything from anyone .. as usual your accusations
>> are
>> groundless and libellous.
>
>----------------
>waht the fuck is it your bussiness??
Because YOU posted your unfounded allegations on a public newsgroup, moron.
You don't want other people commenting on it .. DON'T POST IT. Gees you're
a moron.
>jsut proving that you are actually
>Paul Draper with a mask of anonymous
And there is another example of unfounded porat allegations with zero proof.
You're a moron.
>2
>i have written proves that he stole it from me
You mean like the proof for your unfounded claim above that PD and I are the
same person. BAHAHAHAHA .. you don't know what 'proof' means. Nor
honesty, or ethics, or rational discussion. I can't imagine someone being
as downright nasty as you are .. it is beyond comprehension.
>a
>he (you !!)
Nope .. you're a moron.
> admitted he got it
Lots of people have books
>b
>he (actually you )
Nope .. you're a moron.
> could not prove that i ever gave it to him
There are more ways to get a book than have its author give it to you.
>with my personal dedication
>as i did and do on any copy that i send !!
Why should he .. does he CLAIM that you gave it to him?
>he got only a copy of it yet without my permission-
>it is a crime !!
One doesn't need permission from the author to get a copy of a book from
someone else. That is no crime, moron.
>c
>while it is still copyrighted !!
Irrelevant. Copyright does NOT stop one person giving a book to another
person. It happens all the time.
>
>BYE shameless sub human being gangster
That's you .. you're a piece of filth . .the sooner you DIE the better. I
will celebrate for weeks when you die and you start rotting in the hell that
you so truly deserve.
Igor
Y.Porat wrote:
>
> THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
> CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
>
> WHY?
> i will let that question to other people
> because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
> so l let other people to explain why----
> ------**th e photon momentum hf/c
> cannot be compared in two frames !!**
I'll give you a hint. How does the frequency behave under a Lorentz
transformation?
Y.Porat
----------------
nothing todo with lorentz transformation
you can measure the photon momentum
JUST IN ONE FRAME
NOT MORE !!
got it ??!!
i wonder if you can get a new insight
that is done by someone else:
the moment a photon is detected
it is destroyed !!
one smaty (your friend PD) here said
ok
'but you can send 'a similar photon
tothe second frame....
just see the op title
'physic sis a quantitative science
wile the fiffrences between 'relativistic or not relativistics
are so small
""a similar photon' is similar science !!!
2
if you will learn after 200 years as a sore learner
that hf is not the definition of the real smallest single photon
you willunderstand better the
Doppler effect for photons
2
relativity does not old for photons:
the aGamma factor doe snot apply topthem hf not tomension that hf is
linear
4
indeed if the second frame is a big mass
sayour earth
the gamma factor apply to earth
but not to the photons running in it
or interingit or from it
it aplyes only to the big eaths big mass !!
so ingeneral a 'running away secondary big mass
is getting less photon units per second
so that is the primery cuasse of
red shift of photons in that case
the secondary factor is the
velocity of the big mass *of say our earth
BTW
fo r a changed you asked in a civilized way
so you got a 'semi civilized ' answer ((:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------
Y.Porat
BTW
some insight that occurred to me
following just the above post ::
if we take the calculation of red shift
as a base for derivation of the velocity that galaxies are spreading
out
as infuencing as well the number of single photons that enterthe
secondary frame
IT MIGHT BE VERY UN ACURATE !!
iow
if neglecting the possibility thatthe number of single photons that
enter the secondary
frame
IS NO T THE SAME NUMBER OF
SINGLE PHOTONS THAT WERE CREATED IN THE PRIMERY FRAME !!
because the Gamma factor
is exponential
while hf is linear !!
(and the red shift in galaxy movement detection-
is dependent on
a combination BOTH of them !!)
if i am right it is revolutionary important
for our undertsnding and evaluating
expanding of universe !!
how about that ??
TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Inertial
news:b07bd15d-e4cd-45e6...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 28, 6:18 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>> > THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
>> > CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
>>
>> > WHY?
>> > i will let that question to other people
>> > because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
>> > so l let other people to explain why----
>> > ------**th e photon momentum hf/c
>> > cannot be compared in two frames !!**
>>
>> I'll give you a hint. How does the frequency behave under a Lorentz
>> transformation?
>
>----------------
>nothing todo with lorentz transformation
How things are predicts to be measured in another frame has everything to do
with Lorentz transforms
>you can measure the photon momentum
>
>JUST IN ONE FRAME
>NOT MORE !!
>got it ??!!
Yes .. we know that .. I explained it to you before
>i wonder if you can get a new insight
>that is done by someone else:
>the moment a photon is detected
>it is destroyed !!
Yes .. it is .. that's what i told you
>one smaty (your friend PD) here said
>ok
>'but you can send 'a similar photon
>tothe second frame....
>just see the op title
>'physic sis a quantitative science
Yes
>wile the fiffrences between 'relativistic or not relativistics
>are so small
It all depends on what you are measuring.
>""a similar photon' is similar science !!!
That doesn't make sense. As I said, you can produce a whole stream of
photons and measure their frequencies in two different frames (although for
any particular photon, it is measured in one frame only)
>2
>if you will learn after 200 years as a sore learner
>that hf is not the definition of the real smallest single photon
There is no 'real smallest single photon' .. there is an infinite number of
possible photon energies. And from a single source, the frequency (and
energy) measured depends on the relative speed of the observer
>you willunderstand better the
>Doppler effect for photons
We understand it just fine. Though it seems to be a problem for you
>2
>relativity does not old for photons:
Wrong
>the aGamma factor doe snot apply topthem hf not tomension that hf is
>linear
So what? Of course it is linear .. that many relationships in SR are linear
>4
>indeed if the second frame is a big mass
>sayour earth
>the gamma factor apply to earth
It applies to anything with v < c
>but not to the photons running in it
>or interingit or from it
That makes no sense
>it aplyes only to the big eaths big mass !!
>so ingeneral a 'running away secondary big mass
>is getting less photon units per second
Yeup .. but that isn't anything to do with the frequency of the light
>so that is the primery cuasse of
>red shift of photons in that case
No .. because rate of photon arrival is NOT the frequency of light
>the secondary factor is the
>velocity of the big mass *of say our earth
>
>BTW
>fo r a changed you asked in a civilized way
>so you got a 'semi civilized ' answer ((:-)
We always respond in a civilised way and ask civilised questions .. you
throw abuse and allegations and insults. You're not fit to discuss physics,
or anything else
Inertial
news:ccb8c635-dd19-4a48...@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>how about that ??
You're a moron .. you understand nothing of physics. Give up and get a new
hobby
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" wrote in message
>
> news:b07bd15d-e4cd-45e6...@q2g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 28, 6:18 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >> > THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
> >> > CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
>
> >> > WHY?
> >> > i will let that question to other people
> >> > because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
> >> > so l let other people to explain why----
> >> > ------**th e photon momentum hf/c
> >> > cannot be compared in two frames !!**
>
> >> I'll give you a hint. How does the frequency behave under a Lorentz
> >> transformation?
>
> >----------------
> >nothing todo with lorentz transformation
>
> How things are predicts to be measured in another frame has everything to do
> with Lorentz transforms
>
> >you can measure the photon momentum
>
> >JUST IN ONE FRAME
> >NOT MORE !!
> >got it ??!!
>
> Yes .. we know that .. I explained it to you before
Nazi pigshit
just bring the quote in which you (mother fucker)
EXPLAINED IT TO ME !! i am waiting !!!
2
if a photon can be detected only in one frame
MR pigshit psychopath
that why do you say that
PHOTON MOMENTUM IS RELATIVISTIC??
relativistic( MR pigshit psychopath retard )
is only something that can be measured in two frames !!
got it sub humen creep ??
a relativistic formula
uses the division sign so
TOMORROW PIGSHIT IMBECILE MORON
YOU WILL SAY THAT THE DIVISION SIGN IS RELATIVISTIC
BECAUSE IT IS IN THE RELATIVISTIC FORMULA ...
EVEN JOSEF GOEBBELS WOULD NOT DARE TOBE SUCH A PIGSHIT MOTHER
FUCKER !!
go discuss with PD and his publishing private bussiness !!
next please
Y.P
--------------------------
whoever
news:964f1247-6de3-4ada...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Nazi pigshit
Yes you are .. thanks for confirming it.
>just bring the quote in which you (mother fucker)
>EXPLAINED IT TO ME !! i am waiting !!!
Look back in the threads. Its all there. If you bothered READING replies
to you, and maybe even LEARN from them, you'd know that. But you are a
moron and want to stay that way. You're achieving that goal.
>2
>if a photon can be detected only in one frame
As I said.
> MR pigshit psychopath
Who? Not me .. think you're talking about yourself again
> that why do you say that
> PHOTON MOMENTUM IS RELATIVISTIC??
Because classical physics would say its momentum is zero because its rest
mass is zero (to the best that we've been able to measure it), but
relativistic physics says it is most definitely non-zero. Experimental
results show that the momentum of a photon is nowhere near zero.
> relativistic( MR pigshit psychopath retard )
Why did you describe yourself again>? We all know what you are. You are
indeed a pigshit psychopath retard .. also add in senile paranoid filth.
> is only something that can be measured in two frames !!
WRONG.
For a start, photon momentum *can* be measured in whatever frame you want to
measure it .. but for a given photon it can only be measured once. But you
can choose which frame.
And secondly, 'relativistic' (as you've been told many many many times) does
NOT mean 'two different values in two different frames' .. nor does it mean
'has a gamma factor in it' .. the two incorrect meanings you use for
'relativistic'. Why don't you use the meaning as defined by physics and
explained to you before? Why? Because you're a stubborn moron who refuses
to learn.
> got it
Yes I do. I've been explaining all this to you for ages .. you just don't
get it.
> sub humen creep ??
That's what you are
>a relativistic formula
>uses the division sign so
Some of them do .. yes.
>TOMORROW PIGSHIT IMBECILE MORON
>YOU WILL SAY THAT THE DIVISION SIGN IS RELATIVISTIC
No .. I'm not a moron like you. Only *you* would come up with such utter
nonsense and idiocy.
>BECAUSE IT IS IN THE RELATIVISTIC FORMULA ...
You really are a moron, you know that, don't you.
>EVEN JOSEF GOEBBELS WOULD NOT DARE TOBE SUCH A PIGSHIT MOTHER
>FUCKER !!
No .. you go WAY beyond your hero Goebbels when it comes to being a pigshit
mother fucker (though as your mother is dead, thankfully for her, that would
make you a necrophiliac as well)
>go discuss with PD and his publishing private bussiness !!
Why .. he isn't really interested in your insanity .. though both of us
laugh at it.
> next please
Yeah .. next please .. go away porat, and let those who understand physics
(or who want to learn) make use of the forum. you are polluting it with
your idiocy and abuse.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Y.Porat
>
> >go discuss with PD and his publishing private bussiness !!
>
> Why .. he isn't really interested in your insanity .. though both of us
> laugh at it.
>
> > next please
>
> Yeah .. next please .. go away porat, and let those who understand physics
> (or who want to learn) make use of the forum. you are polluting it with
> your idiocy and abuse.
>
----------------
please note that the pigshit ddint bring a quote
tha thhe was the first one to claim
that since
the photon can be detected only in one frame
it cannot be consif\dered relativistic
it is me why fist claime
that the photon can be detected onklty inone frame
it is documented just at the uper posts here
th e pig shit PD was only **responding to it**
while saying that th e second photon can be
sent to a secondary frame by a 'listen carefully)
BY A SIMILAR PHOTON '!!!
only a crook moron could say such an argument
because a similar photon is never the orriginal photon
and you cannot make sure it wiil be even similar absolutely to
identical!
because we deal here with very tiny
relativistic '' differences
that our tools cannot detect the differences between them
in any case
in any case such a *special designed experinemet
to send a similar '' photon to the secondary frame
was never done !!
UNLESS YOU BRING A PROVE THAT IT WAS DONE WITH THAT SPECIAL MISSION
2
please noth that in this short thread
'three people respnded the same pig stile
vocabulary argumets lies etc
those ' 4 peole are
1
Artful
2 inertial
3
Woever'
4
PD
all of them are the same moron imbecile parrot crook shameless
individual anonymous lier impostor !!
Y.P
------------------------------------------
PD
> On Aug 28, 6:18 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Y.Porat wrote:
>
> > > THE MOMENTUM OF PHOTON
> > > CANNOT BE COMPARED IN TWO FRAMES !!
>
> > > WHY?
> > > i will let that question to other people
> > > because spoon feeding is not internalized or appreciated ??
> > > so l let other people to explain why----
> > > ------**th e photon momentum hf/c
> > > cannot be compared in two frames !!**
>
> > I'll give you a hint. How does the frequency behave under a Lorentz
> > transformation?
>
> ----------------
> nothing todo with lorentz transformation
> you can measure the photon momentum
>
> JUST IN ONE FRAME
> NOT MORE !!
Not so. Any event can be measured in more than one frame. You don't
know what you're talking about.
Your "insights" are mumblings based on misunderstanding even what the
words mean.
Y.Porat
just go to my new thread
'and experiment that has never been done'
and prove it by experimets that has been done
according to someone that i know
here --
science without experimental
verification is not science !!!
until now you just hand waved
to put it mildly - nastily !!!
so lets see you there !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
Inertial
news:5d806b46-2ffc-4a92...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>please note that the pigshit ddint bring a quote
>tha thhe was the first one to claim
>that since
>the photon can be detected only in one frame
its in the thread .. look it up
>it cannot be consif\dered relativistic
what isn't relativistic?
>it is me why fist claime
>that the photon can be detected onklty inone frame
>it is documented just at the uper posts here
You mean after I answered your question as to whether it could be detected
in moer than one frame wit a no ... and now you say it is your claim. Hmmm
>th e pig shit PD was only **responding to it**
I responded to your question
>while saying that th e second photon can be
>sent to a secondary frame by a 'listen carefully)
>BY A SIMILAR PHOTON '!!!
That's not what I said
>only a crook moron could say such an argument
Only onl a crook like you could lie so blatantly
>because a similar photon is never the orriginal photon
Noone said it was. But if you havea stream of identical photons, you can
measure multiples of them in one frame and multiples of them in another and
compare.
This sort of thing (taking multiple measurments over multiple experiments)
is well knows
Further, as you can know the frequency of photons a given source emits you
can compare their frequencies and momentums as measured rom other frames
>and you cannot make sure it wiil be even similar absolutely to
>identical!
Close enoug for experimental accuracy
>because we deal here with very tiny
>relativistic '' differences
And they have been measured
>that our tools cannot detect the differences between them
>in any case
Wrong
>in any case such a *special designed experinemet
>to send a similar '' photon to the secondary frame
>was never done !!
Wrong
>UNLESS YOU BRING A PROVE THAT IT WAS DONE WITH THAT SPECIAL MISSION
There have been many experiments measuring photon frequencies etc from
relatively moving sources. These have show relativistic doppler applies
>please noth that in this short thread
>'three people respnded the same pig stile
>vocabulary argumets lies etc
You mean told you the true
>those ' 4 peole are
>1
>Artful
>2 inertial
>3
>Woever'
They are the three names I use on teh three servers I use .. a I've
explained many many times
>4
>PD
That's Paul Draper
>all of them are the same moron imbecile parrot crook shameless
>individual anonymous lier impostor !!
Nope ..once again you make false allegations with no evidence. You're a
moron