Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #578635 > unrolled thread

Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES:

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 18:17 +0000
    Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 19:18 +0000
      Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-10-03 14:37 -0500
        Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-03 20:22 +0000
          Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-10-03 16:53 -0500
        Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-10-04 14:26 +0200
        Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES: Douglass Nervetti <dlul@esivlen.an> - 2022-10-04 20:47 +0000

#578635 — Re: YES: Einstein was a fake. YES: I do have the correct answers. YES:

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/1/22 5:28 AM, Foos Research wrote:
>> Yes, Einstein was definitely a fake.
> No, but "Foos Research" sure looks and acts like a fake. Or at least a
> stupidity. 
>> His notions were logically absurd, and I can’t figure why they were
>> embraced by the PTB.
> 
> Einstein's ideas about relativity are not "logically absurd", and your
> inability here is simply due to the fact that YOU do not understand
> basic physics. Go STUDY. Use real physics textbooks, not popular
> articles or random web pages.

you just have to prove he wrote those papers. I suspect his wife and 
friends, making him undrestand mathematics. His postmortem brain analysis 
shows he was a thief like Kenseto.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#578644

JanPB wrote:

>> > Einstein's ideas about relativity are not "logically absurd", and
>> > your inability here is simply due to the fact that YOU do not
>> > understand basic physics. Go STUDY. Use real physics textbooks, not
>> > popular articles or random web pages.
>> you just have to prove he wrote those papers. I suspect his wife and
>> friends, making him undrestand mathematics. His postmortem brain
>> analysis shows he was a thief like Kenseto.
> 
> The "wife" angle has been studied (one of the studies by a Russian woman
> scientist BTW) and the result is FAPP negative.
> 
> As for the brain analysis, this sort of thing is well-known to be 100%
> useless, in general (unless there is something super-obviously wrong
> with the organ). But for a normal average brain nobody knows how to tell
> a Bach apart from a beach bum just by looking at their brains.

there is a not directly obvious connection, between a woman and the 
universe. That's why the wive approach. That's how the entering the macro 
scale is done, through a woman. The young unskilled and unqualified 
Einstine knew nothing about.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578646

On 10/3/2022 2:18 PM, Douglass Nervetti wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
>>>> Einstein's ideas about relativity are not "logically absurd", and
>>>> your inability here is simply due to the fact that YOU do not
>>>> understand basic physics. Go STUDY. Use real physics textbooks, not
>>>> popular articles or random web pages.
>>> you just have to prove he wrote those papers. I suspect his wife and
>>> friends, making him undrestand mathematics. His postmortem brain
>>> analysis shows he was a thief like Kenseto.
>>
>> The "wife" angle has been studied (one of the studies by a Russian woman
>> scientist BTW) and the result is FAPP negative.
>>
>> As for the brain analysis, this sort of thing is well-known to be 100%
>> useless, in general (unless there is something super-obviously wrong
>> with the organ). But for a normal average brain nobody knows how to tell
>> a Bach apart from a beach bum just by looking at their brains.
> 
> there is a not directly obvious connection, between a woman and the
> universe. That's why the wive approach. That's how the entering the macro
> scale is done, through a woman. The young unskilled and unqualified
> Einstine knew nothing about.


Are you somehow brain damaged?

There isn't any such connection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578648

whodat wrote:

>>> The "wife" angle has been studied (one of the studies by a Russian
>>> woman scientist BTW) and the result is FAPP negative.
>>>
>>> As for the brain analysis, this sort of thing is well-known to be 100%
>>> useless, in general (unless there is something super-obviously wrong
>>> with the organ). But for a normal average brain nobody knows how to
>>> tell a Bach apart from a beach bum just by looking at their brains.
>> 
>> there is a not directly obvious connection, between a woman and the
>> universe. That's why the wive approach. That's how the entering the
>> macro scale is done, through a woman. The young unskilled and
>> unqualified Einstine knew nothing about.
> 
> Are you somehow brain damaged? There isn't any such connection.

there is. But I have to shit on your deformed face, before going into 
details.

Khakhlukha refusegee in Greece
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vqYQ6KkdJ4JO/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578653

On 10/3/2022 3:22 PM, Douglass Nervetti wrote:
> whodat wrote:
> 
>>>> The "wife" angle has been studied (one of the studies by a Russian
>>>> woman scientist BTW) and the result is FAPP negative.
>>>>
>>>> As for the brain analysis, this sort of thing is well-known to be 100%
>>>> useless, in general (unless there is something super-obviously wrong
>>>> with the organ). But for a normal average brain nobody knows how to
>>>> tell a Bach apart from a beach bum just by looking at their brains.
>>>
>>> there is a not directly obvious connection, between a woman and the
>>> universe. That's why the wive approach. That's how the entering the
>>> macro scale is done, through a woman. The young unskilled and
>>> unqualified Einstine knew nothing about.
>>
>> Are you somehow brain damaged? There isn't any such connection.
> 
> there is. But I have to shit on your deformed face, before going into
> details.
> 
> Khakhlukha refusegee in Greece
> https://www.bitchute.com/video/vqYQ6KkdJ4JO/

Thank you for confirming your brain damage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578700

whodat wrote:

> Are you somehow brain damaged?

Apropos: You are *still* replying to the ‘nym-shifting troll :-D
 

PointedEars
-- 
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
 so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
 of the entire tapestry.”
   —Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#578779

Volney wrote:

>>> there is a not directly obvious connection, between a woman and the
>>> universe. That's why the wive approach. That's how the entering the
>>> macro scale is done, through a woman. The young unskilled and
>>> unqualified Einstine knew nothing about.
>> Are you somehow brain damaged?
>> 
> What do you expect? That's the nymshifter troll, who supports 卐Ru⚡︎⚡︎ia
> 卐, so of course it's brain damaged. There's no better evidence than that.

he has to shit on you ugly face likewise, before going into details 
explaining the phenomenon in physics. How did you two meet together?? You 
stinking cacapitalist americacan *state_terrorist* blowing up life 
essential infrastructure, out of your domain. You disgusting pigs. The 
entire planet knows now you are the *fucking_pigs*. I don't trust you, 
pigs.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web