Re: why relativists just can't handle the truth?
uri
relativity all motion and positions are abstract. While i do agree
that positions are abstract. There is simply no such thing as absolute
positions, i think that motion is absolute.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
> that everything is absolute and the relative is abstract.
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Neither the universe nor it's inhabitants care what an uneducatable
idiot thinks.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
uri
> Neither the universe nor it's inhabitants care what an uneducatable
> idiot thinks.
I'm not an idiot and the universe and it's inhabitants could care less
what you think about me so shut the fuck up.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > Neither the universe nor it's inhabitants care what an uneducatable
> > idiot thinks.
> I'm not an idiot and the universe and it's inhabitants could care less
> what you think so shut the fuck up.
It is more effective if you stamp your feet while saying it.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Sure it does and sure it is to people that:
A) went to school.
B) stayed awake in school.
C) have more than two brain cells.
<snip childish drivel>
hhc...@yahoo.com
Igor
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
> relativity all motion and positions are abstract. While i do agree
> that positions are abstract. There is simply no such thing as absolute
> positions, i think that motion is absolute.
This is easy to refute empirically. So you're notion is doa.
kk
>
> > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
>
> Sure it does and sure it is to people that:
>
> A) went to school.
>
> B) stayed awake in school.
>
> C) have more than two brain cells.
>
> <snip childish drivel>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
Hey, Jimbo, does it really makes sense to use slowed
clocks that are asynchronous, along with contracted rulers?
Even Kindergärtners know better than to use warped tools.
(BTW, Jimbo, people should be referred to as "who," not "that.")
Androcles
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d0672a12-6483-4070...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Relativity makes no sense to people who
A) Went to school.
B) Stayed awake in school.
C) Have more than two FUNCTIONING brain cells.
D) Noticed Einstein's third postulate, the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' is a crock of shit.
E) Can piss all over ignorant bigots such as Pennino.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Feb 29, 12:05?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
> >
> > Sure it does and sure it is to people that:
> >
> > A) went to school.
> >
> > B) stayed awake in school.
> >
> > C) have more than two brain cells.
> >
> > <snip childish drivel>
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> Hey, Jimbo, does it really makes sense to use slowed
> clocks that are asynchronous, along with contracted rulers?
> Even Kinderg?rtners know better than to use warped tools.
> (BTW, Jimbo, people should be referred to as "who," not "that.")
Thus chimes in yet another that can't meet two out of three of the
requirements.
(BTW, it should be "make sense", not "makes sense", there should not
be a comma after "asynchronous", and it is spelled "kindergarteners",
not "Kinderg?rtners", and the "K" should not be capitalized.)
Eric Gisse
WAAH! WAAH!
Paul Cardinale
> On Feb 29, 6:25 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > Neither the universe nor it's inhabitants care what an uneducatable
> > idiot thinks.
>
> I'm not an idiot
Evidence is to the contrary.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
> > Evidence is to the contrary.
> What evidence? What evidence do you have? Just because not everyone
> agrees with the Einstein cult doesn't he's an idiot.
QED.
BTW, why do you post everything twice, I mean other than you are an
idiot?
foolsrushin
What works, works! The rest is crackpot non-sense; theories and
inspirations are the product of experience, unlike those little
fellers at the bottom of your garden! Empirical induction is a
regressive joke, hopefully known to the 130+. Whether anything is
'nonsense' or self-contradictory is a matter of logic, though - or
rather a matter of a self-consistent logic whose propositions are true
merely by definition, though subject to Goedel's incompleteness
theorem. Darwinians and cosmogenecists are on the same raft, and ahead
lie the falls! Sneering a priori comments, by the way, are neither
here nor there!
The late Eric Leathwaite, of Imperial College, London, would have been
fascinated by the defiance of conventional physics exemplified in the
following reports and in many other reports. One must hope that many
fizzicists simply fear for their careers; else, we are in the shit!
For the unintiated, unless a hologram or a collective hallucination,
the occupants of the craft described below would have been virtually
atomised back to stardust!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RwNNDg2I8A
http://ufo-media.com/video/official-evidence/pilot-ufo-sightings/pilot-audio-ufo-report-ohare-airport-chicago.html
--
'foolsrushin.'
The Ghost In The Machine
<dan...@bezeqint.net>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:45:36 -0800 (PST)
<f82e77a4-fbd9-4341...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
> that everything is absolute and the relative is abstract.
>
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
[1] Why doesn't relativity make sense to you? Perhaps
because you don't understand it properly?
[2] Motion is quite concrete, and SR makes very concrete
predictions. These predictions are testable, have been
tested, and found to be consistent with the results of
said tests. (All except one: MMX, and that's mostly
because SR was released after the MMX experiment
was initially run -- a minor ordering problem only.
Alternative explanations for the MMX results eventually
fell by the wayside, as more data and additional experiments
substantiated SR more than these explanations.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:9moo95-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics.relativity, uri
| <dan...@bezeqint.net>
| wrote
| on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:45:36 -0800 (PST)
| <f82e77a4-fbd9-4341...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
| > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
| > relativity all motion and position are abstract. I think the true is
| > that everything is absolute and the relative is abstract.
| >
| > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
|
| You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
|
| [1] Why doesn't relativity make sense to you? Perhaps
| because you don't understand it properly?
And you do?
|
| [2] Motion is quite concrete, and SR makes very concrete
| predictions.
Yeah, and gets it wrong.
| These predictions are testable, have been
| tested, and found to be consistent with the results of
| said tests.
Handwaving lying shit.
PD
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
rather than just using our common sense to *project* our intuition
onto nature. Our intuition is largely off the mark regarding nature.
It's a sad fact, but it is true. Given that, it is our next challenge
to bend our logic to what nature really is.
> In
> relativity all motion and positions are abstract.
And this is the way it is in nature too.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e762862-7371-4816...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 29, 9:51 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
| > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
|
| Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
| challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
Yeah, that's true, Nature doesn't agree that the "time" for light
to get from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires from B to A,
but she does agree you are a stupid fuckin' bigot.
Artful
news:xymyj.160166$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yes, she does. That you cannot see that shows your to be a complete and
utter fool. You give no reason as to why for two fixed points, A and B (in
some frame of reference) that light emitted from A would travel at a
different speed to light emitted from B. It seems pretty reasonable that
the speed would be the same. Nature has never told us otherwise.
> but she does agree you are a stupid fuckin' bigot.
And you are liar .. but there we go.
hanson
news:13sjuh8...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
>> |
news:9e762862-7371-4816...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
>>
news:xymyj.160166$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
to get from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires from B to A,
>
Yes, she does. That you cannot see that shows your to be a complete and
utter fool. You give no reason as to why for two fixed points, A and B (in
some frame of reference) that light emitted from A would travel at a
different speed to light emitted from B. It seems pretty reasonable that
the speed would be the same. Nature has never told us otherwise.
>
but she does agree you are a stupid fuckin' bigot.
>
And you are liar .. but there we go.
>
.... ahahahaha... But Einstein Dingleberries do insist that gravitation
does affect light twice as much as it does mass. So if mass affects light
then one must agree that there is a case to be made FOR Androcles'
assertion... especially if the "two fixed points, A and B (in some frame
of reference) are at different gravitational potentials (points with
different mass content/size...
paraphrased: "Uphill" maybe slower then "Downhill"
... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
Artful
news:w2ryj.13288$ES.2882@trnddc05...
Androcles's misrepresentation of what Einstein said is irrelevant. He only
argues with his own invented assertion, not with what was actually said.
He's built a lovely little straw-man that he has great pleasure in burning
down. It causes great amusement for for those who understand his little
games to watch him do so and pretend he's saying something meaningful. The
definition of time synchronization given by Einstein was about light
travelling between two fixed points in empty space .. no relative
velocities, no moving sources, no difference in gravitational potentials
(remember, this is SR we're talking about).
Androcles
Fecal Jeckyl aka Fartfool aka Varney is too stooopid to realise the
fixed points are most definitely not fixed in SR/GR. Look at him
squealing "same frame of reference" as a caveat. He's been shot
down so many times, even by other relativists, that he has to change
his name regularly. What a cunt!
Autymn D. C.
Does the speed limit for sound and its waves make sense?
Then shut the fuck up.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:32:07 GMT
<b3jyj.160148$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:9moo95-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics.relativity, uri
> | <dan...@bezeqint.net>
> | wrote
> | on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:45:36 -0800 (PST)
> | <f82e77a4-fbd9-4341...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
> | > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
> | > relativity all motion and position are abstract. I think the true is
> | > that everything is absolute and the relative is abstract.
> | >
> | > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
> |
> | You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
> |
> | [1] Why doesn't relativity make sense to you? Perhaps
> | because you don't understand it properly?
>
> And you do?
Depends. Einstein didn't mention bright flying green elephants
(Hellefliegengrünelefanten or some variant thereof) in his theory, as
far as I know.
Perhaps you can point to this phrase in the original?
>
> |
> | [2] Motion is quite concrete, and SR makes very concrete
> | predictions.
>
> Yeah, and gets it wrong.
OK. Where are they wrong?
>
> | These predictions are testable, have been
> | tested, and found to be consistent with the results of
> | said tests.
>
> Handwaving lying shit.
>
OK. Where are they wrong?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.
The Ghost In The Machine
<art...@dodger.com>
wrote
on Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:51:47 +1100
<13sjuh8...@corp.supernews.com>:
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> news:xymyj.160166$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9e762862-7371-4816...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> | On Feb 29, 9:51 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
>> | > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
>> |
>> | Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
>> | challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
>>
>> Yeah, that's true, Nature doesn't agree that the "time" for light
>> to get from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires from B to A,
>
> Yes, she does.
Pedant point: No, she does not; Nature does *not exist*,
certainly not as an anthorpomorphic entity [*]. At best,
the results in various experiments might hint at temporal
isotropy; certainly they are consistent with the hypothesis
of isotropy.
Of course, one problem in all this is that B could be
moving, which complicates things a bit; presumably Einstein
had this in mind when he set up the phrasing anyway, as the
title of his work is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
(as usually translated from the original German).
Admittedly, there's no way B can verify that
the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B
equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A
(from http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)
since B can't see the ray at all until said ray has
reached B.
> That you cannot see that shows your to be a complete and
> utter fool. You give no reason as to why for two fixed points, A and B (in
> some frame of reference) that light emitted from A would travel at a
> different speed to light emitted from B. It seems pretty reasonable that
> the speed would be the same. Nature has never told us otherwise.
Not in a river. Of course MMX disproved the notion of an
aether "river" anyway, and metaphors are always suspect.
At best, MMX replaced the river with a frozen hockey
rink; subsequent experiments replaced it with a weird but
mathematically consistent space.
>
>> but she does agree you are a stupid fuckin' bigot.
>
> And you are liar .. but there we go.
>
[*] of course Nature exists as a series of phenomena,
but existence is easy; any rock can do it. ;-)
The main issue is that something has to run into the
rock; that something is usually photons, fortunately,
which reflect from the rock or are absorbed thereby;
the reflected photons might reach a pair of eyeballs
connected to a brain which interprets the result and
reacts something like "Oooh, look at the pretty
granite rock".
inocs
PD wrote:
> On Feb 29, 9:51 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
>
> Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
> challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
> rather than just using our common sense to *project* our intuition
> onto nature. Our intuition is largely off the mark regarding nature.
> It's a sad fact, but it is true. Given that, it is our next challenge
> to bend our logic to what nature really is.
once again, you express your foken sandwitch stoopidity
ta tha entire free world
you wan ta understand, which stands for math,
physics and logic, by bended logic, which is not
math physics nor logic
you fool,
yoo really wan ta understand by not understanding
Androcles
My math professor is the originator of the humble beast AFAIK.
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~vdp/publications/NDpaiva.pdf
http://carlzimmer.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/16/e_to_the_i_pi.jpg|| >| > || > | [2] Motion is quite concrete, and SR makes very concrete| > | predictions.| >| > Yeah, and gets it wrong.|| OK. Where are they wrong?|Blue shifted motion is light > c motion.SR predicts no blue shift. <shrug>| >| > | These predictions are testable, have been| > | tested, and found to be consistent with the results of| > | said tests.| >| > Handwaving lying shit.| >|| OK. Where are they wrong?Blue shifted motion is light > c motion.f' = f (c+v) /c.SR predicts no blue shift.Ergo you are a false prophet and a false prophet is a lying shitworking on the premise that if you say it often enough they'llbelieve it, you disgusting illogical fuckhead.
Androcles
| In sci.physics.relativity, Artful
| <art...@dodger.com>
| wrote
| on Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:51:47 +1100
| <13sjuh8...@corp.supernews.com>:
| > "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| > news:xymyj.160166$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>
| >> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>
news:9e762862-7371-4816...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| >> | On Feb 29, 9:51 am, uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
| >> | > Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
| >> |
| >> | Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
| >> | challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
| >>
| >> Yeah, that's true, Nature doesn't agree that the "time" for light
| >> to get from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires from B to A,
| >
| > Yes, she does.
|
| Pedant point: No, she does not; Nature does *not exist*,
You have a strange idea of existence.
Not too pedant point:
Varney was shot down as Fecal Jeckyl, hence the snake
resurfaces as FartFool Dodgem hoping nobody will notice;
but as Newton the lion was known to Bernoulli by his paw,
so Varney is known by his arse.
hanson
> Fecal Jeckyl aka Fartfool aka Varney is too stooopid to realise the
> fixed points are most definitely not fixed in SR/GR. Look at him
> squealing "same frame of reference" as a caveat. He's been shot
> down so many times, even by other relativists, that he has to change
> his name regularly. What a cunt!
>
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... "a cunt"?... Then you must continue to
fuck her until she is cured of her severe Einstein Dingleberryism.
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
hanson
wrote in message news:13skgup...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
uri <dann...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical.
>> |
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e762862-7371-4816...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Nature doesn't give a whit about what we think is logical. Our
challenge is to discover, through experiment, what nature really IS,
>>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:xymyj.160166$LD6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yeah, that's true, Nature doesn't agree that the "time" for light
to get from A to B is equal to the "time" it requires from B to A,
>
Yes, she does. That you cannot see that shows your to be a complete and
utter fool. You give no reason as to why for two fixed points, A and B (in
some frame of reference) that light emitted from A would travel at a
different speed to light emitted from B. It seems pretty reasonable that
the speed would be the same. Nature has never told us otherwise.
>
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
but she does agree you are a stupid fuckin' bigot.
>
And you are liar .. but there we go.
>
does affect light twice as much as it does mass. So if mass affects light
then one must agree that there is a case to be made FOR Androcles'
assertion... especially if the "two fixed points, A and B (in some frame
of reference) are at different gravitational potentials (points with
different mass content/size...
paraphrased: "Uphill" maybe slower then "Downhill"
... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
>
Androcles's misrepresentation of what Einstein said is irrelevant. He only
argues with his own invented assertion, not with what was actually said.
He's built a lovely little straw-man that he has great pleasure in burning
down. It causes great amusement for for those who understand his little
games to watch him do so and pretend he's saying something meaningful.
The definition of time synchronization given by Einstein was about light
travelling between two fixed points in empty space .. no relative
velocities, no moving sources, no difference in gravitational potentials
(remember, this is SR we're talking about).
>
ahahaha.... But at your "fixed points in **empty** space" what is
there to emit/absorb the light?... If it's empty, then by definition,
there is nothing there to begin with... So, it appears that it must be
your cranial emptiness that "causes great amusement for for
those who understand"... ahahahahaha...
.... and if it is that "SR you're talking about", it must be that SR
which has that equation which says that anything which has gained
the speed of light has an infinite mass, is of zero thickness in it's
flight direction and takes an infinite amount of time to do so...
>
Androcles does rightfully question Einstein's assumption with his far
deeper scientific reasoning then you with your Varnished Fartfoolish
mentation which is based on.... "It **seems pretty** reasonable"...
ahaha... hahahaha... AHAHA.... AHAHAHA....
>
Listen Varney aka Fecal Jeckyl aka "Artful" Fartfool, if you are a
young student then become aware that your teacher has infected you
with Einstein Dingleberryism... But if you are over 40 & you still have
not seen the con and the light... then you should move closer towards
the cozy warmth of Einstein's sphincter and continue to clanker on
with your religious fervor to "cause great amusement for those who
understand your little games pretending that you are saying something
meaningful".... ahahahaha.... Thanks for the laughs, Varney... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Androcles
What, and wind up with syphillistein from the philistine?
Androcles
It seems pretty reasonable Einstein put "time" in quotes to
distinguish it from time and uses the symbols \tau and t also
to show he means his third postulate in all domains of applicability
of references inertial of frames.
"There is no third postulate" - Fuckhead Varney when she was
Fecal Jeckyl.
hanson
> What, and wind up with syphillistein from the philistine?
>
For heaven's sake; not you. Use this for Varney to feel Einstein's con,
at relativistic speeds, until Varney moans an Artful: "oye-weh, Einstein":
http://www.fuckingmachines.com/site/shoots.jsp?c=4
ahahahaha.... ahahahanson
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
>news:mfpq95-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>| In sci.physics.relativity, Artful
>
>You have a strange idea of existence.
>
>Not too pedant point:
>Varney was shot down as Fecal Jeckyl, hence the snake
>resurfaces as FartFool Dodgem hoping nobody will notice;
>but as Newton the lion was known to Bernoulli by his paw,
>so Varney is known by his arse.
Actually, although Jeckyl is clearly as stupid and useless as Varney used to
be, his real name is Roger Onslow. Maybe he used Varney's name and photo before
just to make make out he was qualified at something.
In case soem aren't aware, the name 'Artful@Roger', comes from the Dickensian
character in Oliver Twist...the 'Artful Dodger', who was a devious little cheat
and thief, just like Varney, Jeckyl and now 'fartful'. Dodger managed to avoid
the gallows but ended up being jailed and deported to Australia with the other
unwanted British scum.
I just hope Fartful doesn't end up here. We have enough shit in this country
now....and more arrives every day..
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.
Androcles
Artful
What a load of unintelligible drivel.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:jo8ms3t539epvh7l8...@4ax.com...
Yeah, ok, Fagin. I live in Dickens' territory.
"Gad's Hill
Shakespeare refers to Gad's Hill (or Gadshill) and its relationship with
highway robbery in his Henry IV Part I. As far back as 1558 there was a
ballad entitled The Robbers of Gad's Hill. The Sir John Falstaff public
house stood at the top of a steep thickly wooded hill, an ideal spot for
highwaymen.
Gad's Hill is the only factual detail concerning the incident of the legend
of the long ride north made by Dick Turpin, a highway man of some repute.
The basic facts of the story are true, but they were told by Turpin to his
admirers before he went to the gallows, and he was taking credit for the
deed of one of his fellow highwaymen, and gang member, a certain Captain,
Richard Dudley who was guilty of the deed.
Gad's Hill Place was once the home of Charles Dickens, who bought it in 1856
for £1,790 and died there in 1870. "
Google Earth: 51°24'34.62"N, 0°27'41.77"E
Artful
I'm so thrilled to be of such great interest to you crackpots. Guess you
like to keep track of who knows your little games.
Dr. Henri Wilson
Relativists play games with fairies. We live in the real world.
Artful
Funny .. you're the one who keeps talking about them. Real physicists don't
need fairies to explain how relativity works.
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Do not feed the trolls.
Artful
You must be getting hungry. You do realize that it is crackpots and liars,
like yourself, that are the trolls here.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
But this idiot is surely living proof that relativity is crap from start to
finish. I think we should encourage people like him.
Artful
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:02:01 GMT, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
>>news:0nsms3l2td61n2vde...@4ax.com...
>>| On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:51 +1100, "Artful" <art...@dodger.com> wrote:
>>|
>
>>| >
>>| >I'm so thrilled to be of such great interest to you crackpots. Guess
>>you
>>| >like to keep track of who knows your little games.
>>|
>>| Relativists play games with fairies. We live in the real world.
>>
>>Do not feed the trolls.
>
> But this idiot is surely living proof that relativity is crap from start
> to
> finish. I think we should encourage people like him.
Your ignorance of physics makes you both look incredibly foolish .. and you
think YOU are the ones pulling the strings. HAHAHAHA
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
| On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:02:01 GMT, "Androcles"
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
| >news:0nsms3l2td61n2vde...@4ax.com...
| >| On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:51 +1100, "Artful" <art...@dodger.com> wrote:
| >|
|
| >| >
| >| >I'm so thrilled to be of such great interest to you crackpots. Guess
you
| >| >like to keep track of who knows your little games.
| >|
| >| Relativists play games with fairies. We live in the real world.
| >
| >Do not feed the trolls.
|
| But this idiot is surely living proof that relativity is crap from start
to
| finish. I think we should encourage people like him.
Trolls need no encouragement. All he'll do is whine. If you haven't
learnt that by now you never will.
Artful
All I'll do is point out the flaws in your understanding and the lies that
you make. That'll keep me busy enough. You've never proven any of your
points (or even shown that you really have any) .. you try to score points
against me and fail every time .. you're nothing just a stupid troll.
Dr. Henri Wilson
final <plonk> notice....
Androcles
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
Just do it (as I did). In Outlook Express (main window) with the
message highlighted, under "Message" hit "Block Sender".
PD
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:25:39 +1100, "Artful" <art...@dodger.com> wrote:
> >news:baQyj.228379$3m6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> >> "Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >>news:5ngns3lpch80k8925...@4ax.com...
> >> | On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:02:01 GMT, "Androcles"
> >> | wrote:
> >> |
> >> | >
> >> | >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
> >> | >news:0nsms3l2td61n2vde...@4ax.com...
> >> | >| On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:56:51 +1100, "Artful" <art...@dodger.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> | >|
> >> |
> >> | >| >
> >> | >| >I'm so thrilled to be of such great interest to you crackpots.
> >> Guess
> >> you
> >> | >| >like to keep track of who knows your little games.
> >> | >|
> >> | >| Relativists play games with fairies. We live in the real world.
> >> | >
> >> | >Do not feed the trolls.
> >> |
> >> | But this idiot is surely living proof that relativity is crap from start
> >> to
> >> | finish. I think we should encourage people like him.
>
> >> Trolls need no encouragement. All he'll do is whine. If you haven't
> >> learnt that by now you never will.
>
> >All I'll do is point out the flaws in your understanding and the lies that
> >you make. That'll keep me busy enough. You've never proven any of your
> >points (or even shown that you really have any) .. you try to score points
> >against me and fail every time .. you're nothing just a stupid troll.
>
> final <plonk> notice....
Liar...
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JunoExpress
> Relativity doesn't make any sense. It simply is not logical. In
> that positions are abstract. There is simply no such thing as absolute
> positions, i think that motion is absolute.
>
> http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Nine out of ten rednecks concur. (The tenth one thinks the theory of
relativity has something to do with him having marital relations
within the family).
M
Artful
Cowardice noted
Artful
news:17b73f8b-073b-438d...@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:):):):)