Listen to Eric Gisse stupidly explain why Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar.
gu...@hotmail.com
Let Eric Gisse explain to everyone why he alone believes that
Temperature is NOT a Lorentz scalar.
HE's too scared because he knows he's too stupid and that he was wrong
all along as everyone explained to him....he needs to go back into
hiding.
va...@cox.net
Hey dipshit, put a cork in it, you're making a gargantuan fool of
yourself.
gu...@hotmail.com
Damnable chicken, why it's Eric Gisse under another email!
According to Google, he only uses this email once every 5 months!!@@
Big mouth filled with insults is suddenly small mouth and a coward.
Answer the below chicken?
----------------------------------------
Randy Poe
> To show the level of his STUPIDITY:
>
> Let Eric Gisse explain
You don't get it yet, do you?
Every single time you start one of these threads with
somebody's name, what you are saying is nonsense, and you
are completely misunderstanding what they are saying
and what you are reading.
All it does is make you look like a complete idiot.
- Randy
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
"Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
So much so that he had to use a different email name this time, to
reply as another person (he uses that email name according to google,
ONCE every 4 months to post in newsgroups.
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 16, 3:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Randy
>
> What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
> specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
>
> "Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e7511d62?dmode=source
You didn't understand in April.
You didn't understand in May.
You still don't understand in June.
For reference, I was taught most of what I know of thermodynamics in
about 3 months. You have failed to understand one simple concept in
about that same time period.
>
> So much so that he had to use a different email name this time, to
> reply as another person (he uses that email name according to google,
> ONCE every 4 months to post in newsgroups.
...what email might that be? Hmm?
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 12:37 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Randy
>
> > What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
> > specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
>
> > "Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
>
>
Quote:" I did not know the exact argument when I said that it was not
a Lorentz invariant scalar"
Ohhhhhh heeee didn't .......only later on he figured he was rigttttth.
Instill the patient with 10 more CCs.
Stop delving back into tensors and screwing your brain more.
Repeat: >....when I said that it was not a Lorentz invariant scalar"
He cannot without the use of tensors explain why temperature cannot be
invariant (forget about Lorentz scalar).
Eric Gisse
[snip crap]
You still don't understand.
I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
this.
Randy Poe
> On Jun 16, 3:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - Randy
>
> What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
> specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
>
> "Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
You garbled it (big surprise).
It is not a Lorentz-INVARIANT scalar. If you had any idea
what the word "scalar", "Lorentz", or "invariant" meant
you would know that what you wrote was nonsense.
Furthermore, he is correct. Temperature is not Lorentz
invariant.
- Randy
Randy Poe
va...@cox.net
> On Jun 16, 4:35 am, v...@cox.net wrote:
>
> Damnable chicken, why it's Eric Gisse under another email!
Get a clue, nitwit, and put a cork in it. My name isn't Eric it's
Bruce. Generally I don't relish calling folks a nitwit but you've
earned the distinction.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 4:37 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 3:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Randy
>
> > What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
> > specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
>
> > "Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
>
> You garbled it (big surprise).
>
??
If copying and pasting another persons words is garbling....then I am
amazed.
> It is not a Lorentz-INVARIANT scalar. If you had any idea
> what the word "scalar", "Lorentz", or "invariant" meant
> you would know that what you wrote was nonsense.
>
> Furthermore, he is correct. Temperature is not Lorentz
> invariant.
>
> - Randy
I think feelings instead of logic get the best of you?
If you disagree Randy, then you disagree with Wikipedia and others
that have debated this with Eric.
gu...@hotmail.com
I simply copy and paste the others exact words...and then someone
explodes with a bunch of feelings as if he was raped.
Telling someone he can't interpret what is said is one thing but when
that subject is simply copied and pasted......
-----------------------------------
Here is an example:
You once said: QUOTE ****COPIED AND PASTED****:"No, photon intensity
does not mean "multiple photons".
Tom Roberst said (COPIED AND PASTED):"Higher intensity means more
photons in the beam".
------------------------------------
If you don't see the mismatch between both statements..... or simply
reply "that a person is not interpreting or understanding what is
ment" without ****any further explanation**** of what that lack of
understanding or what is the interpretation, is ludicrous for everyone
could do the same without any justification...Example: The big bang
was a big banana, and anyone arguing with it does not understand or
interpret what it means.
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
scalar.
WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
be invariant?
You need July for it is difficult to explain, yet you expect it to be
easy for others to understand.
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 12:09 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 4:35 am, v...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > Damnable chicken, why it's Eric Gisse under another email!
>
> Get a clue, nitwit, and put a cork in it. My name isn't Eric it's
> Bruce. Generally I don't relish calling folks a nitwit but you've
> earned the distinction.
>
Welllllll if it ain't Bruce all mighty!!!
Of course he can't be Eric...why it's a new world record Bruce
actually posted twice within the same week where as the email used
only post once every 4 months according to Google.
Yee Haa Bruce Yee Haa!
>
>
> > According to Google, he only uses this email once every 5 months!!@@
>
> > Big mouth filled with insults is suddenly small mouth and a coward.
>
> > Answer the below chicken?
>
> > ----------------------------------------
>
> > To show the level of his STUPIDITY:
>
> > Let Eric Gisse explain to everyone why he alone believes that
> > Temperature is NOT a Lorentz scalar.
>
> > HE's too scared because he knows he's too stupid and that he was
> > wrong
> > all along as everyone explained to him....he needs to go back into
> > hiding.- Hide quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yee Haa Eric Yee Haa!!
The evidence "lies" below here(previous post was Feb.11 2007):
Order of Posts: 4 hrs ago, 23 hrs ago, Feb.11, Jan.19, Jan.16, Dec.19,
etc...
v...@cox.net
This person has not created a profile.
Name:
Location:
Title:
Industry:
Email address: v...@cox.net
Website or Blog:
Quote:
About me:
Average Rating: (6 ratings)
Recent Activity:
Listen to Eric Gisse stupidly explain why Temperature is not a Lorentz
scalar. sci.physics.relativity 4 hours ago
Listen to Eric Gisse stupidly explain why Temperature is not a Lorentz
scalar. sci.physics.relativity 23 hours ago
The Simple Mathematical Equation Behind Moving Dimensions Theory
(MDT) sci.physics Feb 11
I don't understand the "FTL Breaks Causality" thing sci.physics
Jan 19
Shapiro Delay and the Solar System Galactic Motion
sci.physics.relativity Jan 16
Perihelion of Mercury question sci.physics.relativity Dec 19
2006
Perihelion of Mercury question sci.physics.relativity Dec 19
2006
BEYOND EINSTEIN: NEWTON sci.physics.relativity Dec 18 2006
BEYOND EINSTEIN: NEWTON sci.physics.relativity Dec 16 2006
Liberal "D"emocrats Heartbroken Over Saddam sci.astro Nov 8 2006
Eric Gisse
> On Jun 16, 7:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:24 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip crap]
>
> > You still don't understand.
>
> > I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
> > this.
>
> Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
>
> You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
> scalar.
>
> WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
> be invariant?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e7511d62?dmode=source
Failing that, look at the goddamn reference I gave you in APRIL and
stop whining like a little girl.
bullnut
then what are complaining about you stoopid kook sucker
about people doin mistakes? i love people doen mistakes,
its tha only way i learn somthin
tha problem with you is that you never dont even do mistakes
now eat my shit
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 11:34 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 7:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 2:24 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip crap]
>
> > > You still don't understand.
>
> > > I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
> > > this.
>
> > Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
>
> > You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
> > scalar.
>
> > WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
> > be invariant?
>
>
> Failing that, look at the goddamn reference I gave you in APRIL
You said at the above link: "Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 -
v^2/c^2) T"
You must be drunk: T is the Lorentz invariant scalar and T' is it's
relativistic value.
(Don't use Tensors to defy it's a Lorentz invariant)
>
>
>
>
>
> > You need July for it is difficult to explain, yet you expect it to be
> > easy for others to understand.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Randy Poe
> On Jun 17, 5:05 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 11:34 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 7:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 16, 2:24 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [snip crap]
>
> > > > You still don't understand.
>
> > > > I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
> > > > this.
>
> > > Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
>
> > > You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
> > > scalar.
>
> > > WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
> > > be invariant?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e75...
>
> > Failing that, look at the goddamn reference I gave you in APRIL
>
> You said at the above link: "Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 -
> v^2/c^2) T"
>
> You must be drunk: T is the Lorentz invariant scalar and T' is it's
> relativistic value.
>
> (Don't use Tensors to defy it's a Lorentz invariant)
Every single time you start one of these threads with
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 16, 11:34 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 7:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 2:24 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > [snip crap]
>
> > > You still don't understand.
>
> > > I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
> > > this.
>
> > Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
>
> > You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
> > scalar.
>
> > WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
> > be invariant?
>
>
> Failing that, look at the goddamn reference I gave you in APRIL
"Your" exact words at the link above: "when I said that it was not a
Lorentz invariant scalar, I just knew it could not be because T is
defined as dE/dS [partials]which means, via E, that T is a coordinate
dependent number."
....via E, MASS is also a coordinate dependent number, therefore using
your logic statement above Mass would not be a Lorentz invariant
scalar = absurd.
>
>
> > You need July for it is difficult to explain, yet you expect it to be
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 17, 1:57 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 17, 5:05 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 11:34 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 16, 7:33 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 16, 2:24 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > [snip crap]
>
> > > > > You still don't understand.
>
> > > > > I'll ignore the threads you create until July, then we will revisit
> > > > > this.
>
> > > > Not again...is it exam time again, you replied the same years past?
>
> > > > You agree that Temperature is a scalar but not a Lorentz invariant
> > > > scalar.
>
> > > > WITHOUT MIXING IN TENSORS why don't you believe that temperature can
> > > > be invariant?
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e75...
>
> > > Failing that, look at the goddamn reference I gave you in APRIL
>
> > You said at the above link: "Equating dS and dS' gives T' = sqrt(1 -
> > v^2/c^2) T"
>
> > You must be drunk: T is the Lorentz invariant scalar and T' is it's
> > relativistic value.
>
> > (Don't use Tensors to defy it's a Lorentz invariant)
>
> and what you are reading.
>
Yes correct? M' = gamma M , M' is not relativistic Mass and M is not
invariant Mass.
Likewise as Eric Gisse wrote: T' = gamma T, T' is no relativisitic
Temperature and T is not invariant Temperature.
Actually Eric got it reversed,using his equation: T' = sqrt(1 - v^2/
c^2) T", temperature would decrease instead of increase at higher
velocities.
va...@cox.net
> On Jun 16, 10:49 pm, v...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 12:09 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 16, 4:35 am, v...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > > Damnable chicken, why it's Eric Gisse under another email!
>
> > Get a clue, nitwit, and put a cork in it. My name isn't Eric it's
> > Bruce. Generally I don't relish calling folks a nitwit but you've
> > earned the distinction.
>
> Welllllll if it ain't Bruce all mighty!!!
>
> Of course he can't be Eric...why it's a new world record Bruce
> actually posted twice within the same week where as the email used
> only post once every 4 months according to Google.
>
> Yee Haa Bruce Yee Haa!
At least you/ve got the name right nitwit. You're just like every
ignorant crank, posting in these newsgroups, you're only in terested
in being right and science be damned. Nitwit.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > According to Google, he only uses this email once every 5 months!!@@
>
> > > Big mouth filled with insults is suddenly small mouth and a coward.
>
> > > Answer the below chicken?
>
> > > ----------------------------------------
>
> > > To show the level of his STUPIDITY:
>
> > > Let Eric Gisse explain to everyone why he alone believes that
> > > Temperature is NOT a Lorentz scalar.
>
> > > HE's too scared because he knows he's too stupid and that he was
> > > wrong
> > > all along as everyone explained to him....he needs to go back into
> > > hiding.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Eric Gisse
[...]
Nope - this is too difficult for you to understand.
Paul B. Andersen
> On Jun 16, 12:37 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 3:35 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 3:08 am, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> - Randy
>> What is so long and complex to the understanding, Eric Gisse
>> specifically believes that and IN VERY SHORT WORDS:
>>
>> "Temperature is not a Lorentz scalar".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e7511d62?dmode=source
http://www.ipc.bas.bg/PPages/Avramov/RelatJrus.pdf
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/29469/
http://fizika.hfd.hr/fizika_a/av99/a8p223.ps
Paul
Randy Poe
> On Jun 17, 2:09 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 1:57 pm, "g...@hotmail.com" <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 5:05 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You must be drunk: T is the Lorentz invariant scalar and T' is it's
> > > relativistic value.
>
> > > (Don't use Tensors to defy it's a Lorentz invariant)
>
> > completely misunderstanding what they are saying
> > and what you are reading.
>
> Yes correct? M' = gamma M , M' is not relativistic Mass and M is not
> invariant Mass.
Exactly opposite. If you write M' = gamma*M, you mean M' is
so-called "relativistic mass" and M is invariant mass.
- Randy