Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: A critique of Einstein's 1920 lecture on the ether.
28 views
Skip to first unread message
hanson
Oct 4, 2012, 1:22:53 PM10/4/12
to
John A. Armistead "NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
-- Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
>
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Albert Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920
on Ether and Special Relativity, as seen in link:
<http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html>
>
Armisted's critique in full is in:
<http://tinyurl.com/Armistead-s-Critique>
<excerpts of Armisted's critique; edited for brevity>
Einstein was a science groupie, who used Lorentz's
BETA in most of his theories.
Beta = 1 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^� plots a waterfall curve or
is 'rubber peg' equation, which is trying to explain the nil
results of the 1887 M-M experiment.
Lorentz never realized that the ether that he claimed
could [not] only contract the ruler, would also have to
be able to STRETCH the ruler to infinity at velocity 'c'.
>
Einstein's near total misunderstanding of what the
ether is, & how ether affects everything that is. He said:
>
AE: "According to the general theory of relativity
AE: space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
AE: space there not only would be no propagation of
AE: light, but this ether may not be tracked through
AE: time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
[see the entire AE quotes in
<http://tinyurl.com/Armistead-s-Critique>
>
Einstein, the MORON's sentences are at least 2/3rds
deadwood. Einstein was talking-in-a-cloud, and
Einstein was profoundly wrong!!
Respectfully submitted,
- NoEinstein - Real name: John A. Armistead, the Author of:
'The New Constitution of the United States of America'!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I did not read your crap, Armistead, because even when
given the slightest chance that you're right, you do come
100 (one-hundred) years too late.
Your only and sole follower will be:
Androcles, who is always 115 years too late.
>
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Dear Helmut Wabnig, why won't you explain what is "wrong"
about it? Has the "cat" got your tongue?
Androcles does not (yet) agree with anything to do with ether.
All Andcrocles knows is that space-time variances "don't
compute"; nor does "time travel".
Androcles believes what he can see. And since he can't
"see" aether flow, he continues to deny just that.
BUT, I'll take one Androcles over all of you status quo
know-nothings combined! - NoEinstein -
>
hanson wrote:
Ahh what Passion! Gotta luv that passion about physics!
Armistead, I suggest for you, you being a film-maker,
to make a passionate movie about this subject matter.
Make a buck off it, dude. Beats arguing in penniless s.p.
>
Androcles & Koobe Wublee, both math-savvy dudes
to whom these issues are seriously business, can either
star in your flix or at least be your script consultants.
>
Wabnig, has already coyly shown interest in your gig, &
since he sits on the same side the fence only every
2nd day, Wabie can be your gaffer, when he is not
sucking up to Einstein Dingleberries. He'll appreciate that.
>
Wabnig's quip that "your are too late" is NOT strong
enough, though. John Armistead do accept that
_____ Einstein himself was a Relativity denier ______
>
Here is Einstein's SR/GR denialism in his own woprds.
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in"UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, guy/s, & carry on... ahahaha... ahahans
-- Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
>
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Albert Einstein gave an address on 5 May 1920
on Ether and Special Relativity, as seen in link:
<http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html>
>
Armisted's critique in full is in:
<http://tinyurl.com/Armistead-s-Critique>
<excerpts of Armisted's critique; edited for brevity>
Einstein was a science groupie, who used Lorentz's
BETA in most of his theories.
Beta = 1 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^� plots a waterfall curve or
is 'rubber peg' equation, which is trying to explain the nil
results of the 1887 M-M experiment.
Lorentz never realized that the ether that he claimed
could [not] only contract the ruler, would also have to
be able to STRETCH the ruler to infinity at velocity 'c'.
>
Einstein's near total misunderstanding of what the
ether is, & how ether affects everything that is. He said:
>
AE: "According to the general theory of relativity
AE: space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
AE: space there not only would be no propagation of
AE: light, but this ether may not be tracked through
AE: time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
[see the entire AE quotes in
<http://tinyurl.com/Armistead-s-Critique>
>
Einstein, the MORON's sentences are at least 2/3rds
deadwood. Einstein was talking-in-a-cloud, and
Einstein was profoundly wrong!!
Respectfully submitted,
- NoEinstein - Real name: John A. Armistead, the Author of:
'The New Constitution of the United States of America'!
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I did not read your crap, Armistead, because even when
given the slightest chance that you're right, you do come
100 (one-hundred) years too late.
Your only and sole follower will be:
Androcles, who is always 115 years too late.
>
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Dear Helmut Wabnig, why won't you explain what is "wrong"
about it? Has the "cat" got your tongue?
Androcles does not (yet) agree with anything to do with ether.
All Andcrocles knows is that space-time variances "don't
compute"; nor does "time travel".
Androcles believes what he can see. And since he can't
"see" aether flow, he continues to deny just that.
BUT, I'll take one Androcles over all of you status quo
know-nothings combined! - NoEinstein -
>
hanson wrote:
Ahh what Passion! Gotta luv that passion about physics!
Armistead, I suggest for you, you being a film-maker,
to make a passionate movie about this subject matter.
Make a buck off it, dude. Beats arguing in penniless s.p.
>
Androcles & Koobe Wublee, both math-savvy dudes
to whom these issues are seriously business, can either
star in your flix or at least be your script consultants.
>
Wabnig, has already coyly shown interest in your gig, &
since he sits on the same side the fence only every
2nd day, Wabie can be your gaffer, when he is not
sucking up to Einstein Dingleberries. He'll appreciate that.
>
Wabnig's quip that "your are too late" is NOT strong
enough, though. John Armistead do accept that
_____ Einstein himself was a Relativity denier ______
>
Here is Einstein's SR/GR denialism in his own woprds.
Here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution,
which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote:
>
|||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when
Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake
that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer
that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
== namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and
== his lunacies like:
>
||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we
||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean &
__ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall,
when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts
[TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote:
>
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit,
which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in"UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc,
etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said:
>
|||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
|||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and
defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Take care, guy/s, & carry on... ahahaha... ahahans
mpc755
Oct 4, 2012, 1:28:21 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 1:23 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime' is the state of
displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime' is the state of
displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
hanson
Oct 4, 2012, 6:19:04 PM10/4/12
to
Michael Cavedon "mpc755" aka Mental Partient case #755
<mpc...@gmail.com>, fanatical & obsessed, wrote:
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> John A. Armistead "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> ___________
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>> John A. Armistead "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
>
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I did not read your crap, Armistead, because even when
given the slightest chance that you're right, you do come
100 (one-hundred) years too late.
Your only and sole follower will be:
Androcles, who is always 115 years too late.
> ____________
Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I did not read your crap, Armistead, because even when
given the slightest chance that you're right, you do come
100 (one-hundred) years too late.
Your only and sole follower will be:
Androcles, who is always 115 years too late.
>
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Dear Helmut Wabnig, why won't you explain what is "wrong"
about it? Has the "cat" got your tongue?
Androcles does not (yet) agree with anything to do with ether.
All Andcrocles knows is that space-time variances "don't
compute"; nor does "time travel".
Androcles believes what he can see. And since he can't
"see" aether flow, he continues to deny just that.
BUT, I'll take one Androcles over all of you status quo
know-nothings combined! - NoEinstein -
> ____________
Armistead "NoEinstein" wrote:
Dear Helmut Wabnig, why won't you explain what is "wrong"
about it? Has the "cat" got your tongue?
Androcles does not (yet) agree with anything to do with ether.
All Andcrocles knows is that space-time variances "don't
compute"; nor does "time travel".
Androcles believes what he can see. And since he can't
"see" aether flow, he continues to deny just that.
BUT, I'll take one Androcles over all of you status quo
know-nothings combined! - NoEinstein -
>
Mental Partient case #755 Cavedon wrote:
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime'
is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
of the aether.
& a link that said the same as above. <snip crap>
Mental Partient case #755 Cavedon wrote:
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime'
is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
of the aether.
> ____________
>
hanson wrote:
The only thing that you refer to "is the state of
displacement" of your rationality with your own
fixation, obsession and fanaticism for something
that you wish & believe to exist, but does NOT.
>
However if you continue to repeat your aberration
aka displacement long enough, you may gather
disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
mpc755
Oct 4, 2012, 6:26:39 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> hanson wrote:
>
> The only thing that you refer to "is the state of
> displacement" of your rationality with your own
> fixation, obsession and fanaticism for something
> that you wish & believe to exist, but does NOT.
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
> hanson wrote:
>
> The only thing that you refer to "is the state of
> displacement" of your rationality with your own
> fixation, obsession and fanaticism for something
> that you wish & believe to exist, but does NOT.
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
>
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
hanson
Oct 4, 2012, 7:05:49 PM10/4/12
to
Michael Cavedon "mpc755" aka Mental Patient case #755
<mpc...@gmail.com>, fanatical & obsessed, repeated
his aetheral fixation, is so far gone that he does not
understand that....
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
The only thing that you, Cavedon, refer to "is the state
<mpc...@gmail.com>, fanatical & obsessed, repeated
his aetheral fixation, is so far gone that he does not
understand that....
>
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
The only thing that you, Cavedon, refer to "is the state
xxein
Oct 4, 2012, 7:58:06 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
xxein:
AE: "According to the general theory of relativity
AE: space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
AE: space there not only would be no propagation of
AE: light, but this ether may not be tracked through
AE: time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
of the ether itself?
may not? Is that the emphatic 'no', or is it the 'I don't know'?
hanson
Oct 4, 2012, 8:25:37 PM10/4/12
to
> ____________
>
> Mental Partient case #755 Cavedon wrote:
> What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime'
> is the state of displacement of the aether.
> The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
> of the aether.
> & a link that said the same as above. <snip crap>
> ____________
>
> hanson wrote:
> The only thing that you,Cavedon, refer to "is the
>
> Mental Partient case #755 Cavedon wrote:
> What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime'
> is the state of displacement of the aether.
> The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement
> of the aether.
> & a link that said the same as above. <snip crap>
> ____________
>
> hanson wrote:
> state of > displacement" of your rationality with your
> own fixation, obsession & fanaticism for something
> that you wish & believe to exist, but does NOT.
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
> . __________
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
>
Klein/Stein xxein wrote:
AE: "According to the general theory of relativity
AE: space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
AE: space there not only would be no propagation of
AE: light, but this ether may not be tracked through
AE: time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
The idea of motion may not be applied to it?
Motion in it or motion of the ether itself?
may not?
Is that the emphatic 'no', or is it the 'I don't know'?
>
{xxein:] Albert Einstein was semi-correct with
Klein/Stein xxein wrote:
AE: "According to the general theory of relativity
AE: space without ether is unthinkable; for in such
AE: space there not only would be no propagation of
AE: light, but this ether may not be tracked through
AE: time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
>
The idea of motion may not be applied to it?
Motion in it or motion of the ether itself?
may not?
Is that the emphatic 'no', or is it the 'I don't know'?
>
[xxein:] the observabe part but it wasn't the physic.
[xxein:] But that is his theory which still defies logic.
[xxein:] On this scale, there are no physicists who would
[xxein:] defy Einstein. __Except for me, xxein.___
>
>. ___________
>
hanson wrote:
So, Klein, why are you asking then in the 1st place?
Read the whole post... Till then, you splendid schmuck,
thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
mpc755
Oct 4, 2012, 8:44:55 PM10/4/12
to
consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked
through time.
Aether is displaced by matter.
mpc755
Oct 4, 2012, 8:45:49 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 7:08 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
>
>
> However if you continue to repeat your aberration
> aka displacement long enough, you may gather
> disciples, like Einstein with his Dingleberries did.
> Unfortunately then, like him, you will see the light
> and displace your fixation with a recant, just like
> AE did. Thanks for the laughs though... ahahaha...
>
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime' is the state of
displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
What Einstein referred to as 'curved spacetime' is the state of
displacement of the aether.
Vilas Tamhane
Oct 5, 2012, 11:46:44 AM10/5/12
to
On Oct 4, 10:23 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Somewhere Bertrand Russell quoted one page long paragraph by a
spiritualist and then asked, “Can you find a single meaningful
sentence in the whole paragraph?” ditto Einstein’s long tortuous
speech. There are some good points but a rational person could have
expressed the same thoughts in a small lucid paragraph.
On the other hand, Newton was always rational and so his expressions
were always lucid. At his time those who did not believe in action at
a distance, came up with the idea of ether. In short they proposed
that force exerted was through ether. On that Newton said something as
follows,
(Words mine), “If we must believe that action at a distance is through
the medium of ether then it is necessary to ascribe material
properties to ether. But while doing so we come across a great
difficulty. If ether is something like matter then it should be
obvious that it cannot be continuous and so there will always be space
in between the particles of ether. Are we to assume that there is
other kind of ether to fill this space?”
We cannot describe and should not describe anything that we speculate
without ascribing and calculating properties of our imagined entities.
No doubt efforts were made in that direction and they found that if we
admit presence of ether then such a medium should have almost infinite
density ( for light to travel at its measured velocity) and almost
zero viscosity (otherwise planets would cause friction due to their
motion). So we don’t have any proof for existence of ether nor do we
have any calculations to support its properties.
spiritualist and then asked, “Can you find a single meaningful
sentence in the whole paragraph?” ditto Einstein’s long tortuous
speech. There are some good points but a rational person could have
expressed the same thoughts in a small lucid paragraph.
On the other hand, Newton was always rational and so his expressions
were always lucid. At his time those who did not believe in action at
a distance, came up with the idea of ether. In short they proposed
that force exerted was through ether. On that Newton said something as
follows,
(Words mine), “If we must believe that action at a distance is through
the medium of ether then it is necessary to ascribe material
properties to ether. But while doing so we come across a great
difficulty. If ether is something like matter then it should be
obvious that it cannot be continuous and so there will always be space
in between the particles of ether. Are we to assume that there is
other kind of ether to fill this space?”
We cannot describe and should not describe anything that we speculate
without ascribing and calculating properties of our imagined entities.
No doubt efforts were made in that direction and they found that if we
admit presence of ether then such a medium should have almost infinite
density ( for light to travel at its measured velocity) and almost
zero viscosity (otherwise planets would cause friction due to their
motion). So we don’t have any proof for existence of ether nor do we
have any calculations to support its properties.
mpc755
Oct 5, 2012, 11:51:08 AM10/5/12
to
crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow
denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of
light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? …
Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun,
stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between
them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow
denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those
great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the
bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the
medium towards the rarer?” – Newton
Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
The aether does not grow denser and denser. The aether is, or behaves
similar to, a supersolid. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether
pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.
Maxwell’s displacement current is a physical displacement of the
aether.
Einstein defined the state of the aether as determined by its
connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring
places. This is the state of displacement of the aether.
de Broglie described a particle, even isolated, as in energetic
contact with a hidden medium. de Broglie was describing a particle’s
displacement of the aether. The displaced aether pushing back and
exerting inward pressure toward the particle is the energetic contact.
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. There
is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter not anchored to matter.
Matter moves through and displaces the aether.
Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a
double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and
the associated aether wave through both.
Vilas Tamhane
Oct 5, 2012, 2:15:55 PM10/5/12
to
raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
understand. Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it. But
there are promoters for this hogwash such as Big Dog. They wrap this
hogwash in words that are used by spiritual Gurus. So a space-time
graph of Lorentz equation becomes Space-Time continuum. Poor students
who learn this believe that these are words of a prophet. How sad!
mpc755
Oct 5, 2012, 2:25:37 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 2:15 pm, Vilas Tamhane <vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I visited original post and though I don’t agree with the points
> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
> that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> understand. Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it. But
> there are promoters for this hogwash such as Big Dog. They wrap this
> hogwash in words that are used by spiritual Gurus. So a space-time
> graph of Lorentz equation becomes Space-Time continuum. Poor students
> who learn this believe that these are words of a prophet. How sad!
>
> I visited original post and though I don’t agree with the points
> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
> that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> understand. Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it. But
> there are promoters for this hogwash such as Big Dog. They wrap this
> hogwash in words that are used by spiritual Gurus. So a space-time
> graph of Lorentz equation becomes Space-Time continuum. Poor students
> who learn this believe that these are words of a prophet. How sad!
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
unthinkable"
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.
Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter.
Einstein's curved spacetime is the state of displacement of the
aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 5, 2012, 2:24:30 PM10/5/12
to
"Vilas Tamhane" <vilast...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0191c6fc-0834-4639...@v19g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Your wise words about the spaces between the aether
clumps
being filled go back 800 years to William of Ockham,
Vilas.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine
necessitate, “Plurality should not be
posited without necessity.”
--
This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Big Dog
Oct 5, 2012, 2:40:58 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 1:15 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> I visited original post and though I don�t agree with the points
> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein�s speech
meaning" and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
> Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
Why do you say that? Do you think that ANYONE who understands it is
irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those
that don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
If not, why do you reject that possibility? If yes, then what do you
think the distinction is between the rational people who understand it
and the rational people that don't understand it?
> I visited original post and though I don�t agree with the points
> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein�s speech
> that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> understand.
I'm sorry, what part of what you read was "loaded with celestial
> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> understand.
meaning" and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
> Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those
that don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
If not, why do you reject that possibility? If yes, then what do you
think the distinction is between the rational people who understand it
and the rational people that don't understand it?
hanson
Oct 5, 2012, 3:48:53 PM10/5/12
to
>> I visited original post and though I don’t agree with the points
>> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
Fatso, who yearns to be a big dog, lamented and
wondered: "what is the distinction is between the
difference, since it was posted by people who do
understand it AND YOU. And they said:
>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
"The abject moron Pig Dog" Fatso, the Big Dog
<big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only idiots, like Fatso, would make comments like that.
The ball-less, lying little bitch, [who likes to be Big Dog],
is an idiot as well. <shrug>
>
Lord Androcles wrote:
The abject moron Pig Dog is so stupid it doesn't realise G exists
because metres, kilograms and seconds are arbitrary units, but its
statement does demonstrate just how low its intelligence really is.
Somebody should shoot it to put it, Pig Dog, the Schweinehund,
out of its misery.
>> raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
>> that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
>> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
>> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
>> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
>> understand.
>
>> in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
>> use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
>> loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
>> understand.
>
Fatso wrote:
> I'm sorry, what part of what you read was "loaded with celestial meaning"
> and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
>
> I'm sorry, what part of what you read was "loaded with celestial meaning"
> and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
>
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
>> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
>
>> Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
>> is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
>
Fatso wrote:
> Why do you say that? Do you think that ANYONE who understands it is
> irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
> rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those that
> don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
> If not, why do you reject that possibility? If yes, then what do you think
> the distinction is between the rational people who understand it and the
> rational people that don't understand it?
>
> Why do you say that? Do you think that ANYONE who understands it is
> irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
> rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those that
> don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
> If not, why do you reject that possibility? If yes, then what do you think
> the distinction is between the rational people who understand it and the
> rational people that don't understand it?
>
Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> But there are promoters for this hogwash such as Big Dog. They wrap this
>> hogwash in words that are used by spiritual Gurus. So a space-time
>> graph of Lorentz equation becomes Space-Time continuum. Poor students who
>> learn this believe that these are words of a prophet. How sad!
>>
hanson wrote:
>> But there are promoters for this hogwash such as Big Dog. They wrap this
>> hogwash in words that are used by spiritual Gurus. So a space-time
>> graph of Lorentz equation becomes Space-Time continuum. Poor students who
>> learn this believe that these are words of a prophet. How sad!
>>
Fatso, who yearns to be a big dog, lamented and
wondered: "what is the distinction is between the
rational people who understand it and the rational
people that don't understand it?"
Fatso, for your benefit, listen. Let me show you that
people that don't understand it?"
difference, since it was posted by people who do
understand it AND YOU. And they said:
>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
"The abject moron Pig Dog" Fatso, the Big Dog
<big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only idiots, like Fatso, would make comments like that.
The ball-less, lying little bitch, [who likes to be Big Dog],
is an idiot as well. <shrug>
>
Lord Androcles wrote:
The abject moron Pig Dog is so stupid it doesn't realise G exists
because metres, kilograms and seconds are arbitrary units, but its
statement does demonstrate just how low its intelligence really is.
Somebody should shoot it to put it, Pig Dog, the Schweinehund,
out of its misery.
Big Dog
Oct 5, 2012, 3:51:44 PM10/5/12
to
On 10/5/2012 2:48 PM, hanson wrote:
> Fatso,
165 lbs. You?
> who yearns to be a big dog, lamented and
> wondered: "what is the distinction is between the
> rational people who understand it and the rational
> people that don't understand it?"
> Fatso, for your benefit, listen. Let me show you that
> difference, since it was posted by people who do
> understand it AND YOU. And they said:
I'm sorry, you said you were going to cite people who understand
relativity, and then you quote Androcles and Koobee Wublee, neither of
whom do. If you had a point, when were you going to get around to it?
> Fatso,
165 lbs. You?
> who yearns to be a big dog, lamented and
> wondered: "what is the distinction is between the
> rational people who understand it and the rational
> people that don't understand it?"
> Fatso, for your benefit, listen. Let me show you that
> difference, since it was posted by people who do
> understand it AND YOU. And they said:
relativity, and then you quote Androcles and Koobee Wublee, neither of
whom do. If you had a point, when were you going to get around to it?
mpc755
Oct 5, 2012, 4:54:16 PM10/5/12
to
On Oct 5, 2:40 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 1:15 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > I visited original post and though I don’t agree with the points
> On 10/5/2012 1:15 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > raised in OP, it is clear from what he said about Einstein’s speech
> > that 2/3rd is deadwood. He was talking in a cloud. That is what I said
> > in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> > use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> > loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> > understand.
>
> I'm sorry, what part of what you read was "loaded with celestial
> meaning" and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
>
> > Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> > is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
>
> Why do you say that? Do you think that ANYONE who understands it is
> irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
> rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those
> that don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
>
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
> > in my previous message. Such a talk is normal for spiritualists. They
> > use profound words in meaningless sentences but the text appears to be
> > loaded with some celestial meaning which ordinary people cannot
> > understand.
>
> I'm sorry, what part of what you read was "loaded with celestial
> meaning" and beyond what ordinary people can understand? Be specific.
>
> > Theory of relativity is founded on similar principles. It
> > is not a theory but hogwash and no rational mind can accept it.
>
> Why do you say that? Do you think that ANYONE who understands it is
> irrational? Is it POSSIBLE for you to entertain the notion that, among
> rational people, there are those who understand relativity AND those
> that don't? I ask this in all seriousness.
>
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
It is rational to understand there is an ether in relativity.
If you understand the relativistic ether wave propagates a photon,
which you do, then it is rational to understand the relativistic ether
wave propagates through both slits in a double slit experiment.
hanson
Oct 5, 2012, 8:13:31 PM10/5/12
to
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>
>
Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
since
and likes to be the Big Dog], is an idiot as well. <shrug>
>
>
Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
since
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
"The abject moron Pig Dog" Fatso, the Big Dog
<big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only idiots, like Fatso, would make comments like that.
The ball-less, lying little bitch, [who says he weighs 165#
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
"The abject moron Pig Dog" Fatso, the Big Dog
<big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only idiots, like Fatso, would make comments like that.
and likes to be the Big Dog], is an idiot as well. <shrug>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Oct 5, 2012, 9:02:32 PM10/5/12
to
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:k4nt3a$15j$1...@dont-email.me...
...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>
>
Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
>
>
Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
Note
also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
If instead of metres or inches for length we use strangs,
and instead of pounds or tonnes for mass we use efalumps,
and instead of seconds or days for time we use twenks,
then referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
we have
G = 1 strang^3 * efalump^-1 * twenk^-2
and F = 1 * mM/r^2
(plus an intuition that placed the
constant 1 in there).
Now all the dumbfuck Pig Dog need do is figure out how many
furlongs
are in a strang, how many pennyweights are in an efalump and how
many
twenks are in a twinkle in my eye, and he can have his own G.
My G = 1 but I do have my own units.
This may help him:
Big Dog
Oct 6, 2012, 9:32:36 AM10/6/12
to
On 10/5/2012 7:13 PM, hanson wrote:
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>>
>>
> Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
What do you think I lied about?
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>>
>>
> Fatso, the wanna be "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
> cranked himself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
hanson
Oct 6, 2012, 4:59:33 PM10/6/12
to
.... AHAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>
The wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitchwith the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
Here it is, little bitch, and you are "an idiot as well" since
The ball-less, lying little bitch, is an idiot as well. <shrug>
Not withstanding the judgment rendered upon you by
Wublee and Androcles, you are behaving like the kikes
(Hillman, Baez, etc) who swarmed this group ca 2003/5.
>
They were all fanatical Einstein Dingleberries which
tried to tutor anyone who had seen the light that
__Einstein himself was a Relativity denier__
back into becoming again an Einstein Dingleberry that
worships Albert's sphincter.
You, little bitch, are a "Jonnie come lately" of that sorry ilk.
>
You may check the archives of Dr. KW, Dr. Androcles and
yours truly, etc, and find out why and how they rose above
the lies and the cons of what you are proselitizing here for.
>
What did you lie about? .... Look into the mirror, you Dreidel.
>
Take care & thanks for teh laughs you sorry schmuck.
ahahahahanson
>
The wrinkled, scrawny assed little bitchwith the bark &
fat loud-mouth of a "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com>
cranked itself, weaseled, lied & wrote:
>
What do you think I lied about?
>
hanson wrote:
>
What do you think I lied about?
>
Here it is, little bitch, and you are "an idiot as well" since
>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote
on Sep 30, 12:42 am, because on Sep 27, 2:12 pm,
>
"The abject moron Pig Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Only idiots, would make comments like that.
Note also how Newton derived his gravitational law, which
was leveraging some of the insight from his other dynamical
laws, and some observations that suggested the 1/r^2
dependence, plus an intuition that placed the constant G in there.
>
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
The ball-less, lying little bitch, is an idiot as well. <shrug>
>
Lord Androcles wrote:
The abject moron Pig Dog is so stupid it doesn't realise G exists
because metres, kilograms and seconds are arbitrary units, but its
statement does demonstrate just how low its intelligence really is.
Somebody should shoot it to put it, Pig Dog, the Schweinehund,
out of its misery.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
hanson wrote:
Lord Androcles wrote:
The abject moron Pig Dog is so stupid it doesn't realise G exists
because metres, kilograms and seconds are arbitrary units, but its
statement does demonstrate just how low its intelligence really is.
Somebody should shoot it to put it, Pig Dog, the Schweinehund,
out of its misery.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>
Not withstanding the judgment rendered upon you by
Wublee and Androcles, you are behaving like the kikes
(Hillman, Baez, etc) who swarmed this group ca 2003/5.
>
They were all fanatical Einstein Dingleberries which
tried to tutor anyone who had seen the light that
__Einstein himself was a Relativity denier__
back into becoming again an Einstein Dingleberry that
worships Albert's sphincter.
You, little bitch, are a "Jonnie come lately" of that sorry ilk.
>
You may check the archives of Dr. KW, Dr. Androcles and
yours truly, etc, and find out why and how they rose above
the lies and the cons of what you are proselitizing here for.
>
What did you lie about? .... Look into the mirror, you Dreidel.
>
Take care & thanks for teh laughs you sorry schmuck.
ahahahahanson
0 new messages