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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #579354 > unrolled thread

<crickets>

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 19:57 +0000
    Re: <crickets> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:10 +0100
      Re: <crickets> Earl Hyde <neve@mccdre.jp> - 2022-03-03 20:19 +0000
        Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 20:32 +0000
    Re: <crickets> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 12:20 -0800
    Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 20:28 +0000
      Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:11 +0000
        Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 21:37 +0000
          Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:58 +0000
            Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 22:07 +0000
              Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 22:22 +0000
                Re: <crickets> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 14:38 -0800
                Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 22:38 +0000
                  Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 00:29 +0000
                    Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-04 12:37 +0000
                      Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 13:03 +0000
                        Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 10:22 -0800
            Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 10:18 -0800
        Re: <crickets> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 14:20 -0800
        Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 10:15 -0800
          Re: <crickets> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:12 -0800
          Re: <crickets> Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 19:24 -0800
            Re: <crickets> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 23:34 -0500
              Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-05 11:54 -0800
                Re: <crickets> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 15:05 -0800
                Re: <crickets> patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-05 15:17 -0800
                Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-13 12:07 -0700
                  Re: <crickets> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-13 14:36 -0500
            Re: <crickets> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:01 +0100
              Re: <crickets> Jacian Bomia <jbom@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-08 01:00 +0000
      Re: <crickets> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-03 18:17 -0500
        Re: <crickets> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-03 23:27 +0000
          Re: <crickets> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 15:45 -0800
            Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 00:29 +0000
              Re: <crickets> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 19:22 -0800
                Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-03 20:23 -0800
                  Re: <crickets> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 20:59 -0800
                Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 11:03 -0800
        Re: <crickets> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 21:45 -0800
        Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 10:47 -0800
    Re: <crickets> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-03 14:18 -0800
    Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-03 15:09 -0800
      Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-03 15:13 -0800
      Re: <crickets> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 06:35 -0800
    Re: <crickets> Tommy Read <nds@ppncd.ca> - 2022-03-04 10:35 +0000
      Re: <crickets> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 10:15 -0500
        Re: <crickets> Tommy Read <nds@ppncd.ca> - 2022-03-04 16:47 +0000
          Re: <crickets> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 13:35 -0500
            Re: <crickets> Grant Knox <iir@nnewa.ca> - 2022-03-04 21:48 +0000
              Re: <crickets> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 14:51 -0800
              Re: <crickets> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-04 18:55 -0500
                Re: <crickets> Darin Herr <dh@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-05 15:38 +0000
    Re: <crickets> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 10:04 -0800
      Re: <crickets> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 18:08 +0000
    Re: <crickets> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 12:34 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#579354 — <crickets>

For the last day or so, it’s just been the quiet gibbering from resident
psychotic half-wits: Maciej Wozniak, Pentcho Valev, Mitch Raemsch, and carl
eto/thor stoneman. 

For a bit, we are free from long winded rants exuded by drunks and raging
retired engineers. No Ken Seto, no Pat Dolan, no David Seppala, no Henry
Wilson, no Richard Hertz, no Richard Lengrande, no “itsalllies”. 

Even the word salad tossers (Finlayson, DiEgidio, Fontenot, RichD) and the
cackling jackdaws (Starmaker, the evanescent nym-shifter) have found
nothing to make random noise about. 

Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity is
finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#579355

Op 03-mrt.-2022 om 20:57 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> 
> For the last day or so, it’s just been the quiet gibbering from resident
> psychotic half-wits: Maciej Wozniak, Pentcho Valev, Mitch Raemsch, and carl
> eto/thor stoneman.
> 
> For a bit, we are free from long winded rants exuded by drunks and raging
> retired engineers. No Ken Seto, no Pat Dolan, no David Seppala, no Henry
> Wilson, no Richard Hertz, no Richard Lengrande, no “itsalllies”.
> 
> Even the word salad tossers (Finlayson, DiEgidio, Fontenot, RichD) and the
> cackling jackdaws (Starmaker, the evanescent nym-shifter) have found
> nothing to make random noise about.
> 
> Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity is
> finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits?
> 

Or could it be that the Kremlin disinformation team has
other priorities?

Dirk Vdm

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

#579358

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity
>> is finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits?
> 
> Or could it be that the Kremlin disinformation team has other
> priorities?

Mathin3D wrote:

> You are a freaking moron. The closest thing to a Na zi in the
> Russia-Ukraine conflict is Zelenskii - in fact that is the reason this
> war started - because of Zelenskii exercising neo-Na zi politics of
> discrimination and ethnic cleansing.

open without shame, from the cup detat 2014. Mass celebration January with
vids still available. The what's her name, former president Tomasenko
something, said on record to send a nuclear bomb over Moscow.

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

#579362

Le 03/03/2022 à 21:19, Earl Hyde a écrit :
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> 
> open without shame, from the cup detat 2014. Mass celebration January with
> vids still available. The what's her name, former president Tomasenko
> something, said on record to send a nuclear bomb over Moscow.

If we send a nuclear bomb on Moscow, I don't see how we can complain if 
the Russians atomize New York, Paris and London in response.
But hey, history has shown that man is capable of worse follies.
So you have to be careful.

R.H. 

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

#579359

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 11:57:31 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> For the last day or so, it’s just been the quiet gibbering from resident 
> psychotic half-wits: Maciej Wozniak, Pentcho Valev, Mitch Raemsch, and carl 
> eto/thor stoneman. 
> 
> For a bit, we are free from long winded rants exuded by drunks and raging 
> retired engineers. No Ken Seto, no Pat Dolan, no David Seppala, no Henry 
> Wilson, no Richard Hertz, no Richard Lengrande, no “itsalllies”. 
> 
> Even the word salad tossers (Finlayson, DiEgidio, Fontenot, RichD) and the 
> cackling jackdaws (Starmaker, the evanescent nym-shifter) have found 
> nothing to make random noise about. 
> 
> Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity is 
> finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits? 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


That's word soup.  

You want a bowl of word soup?

... Oliver?

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

#579361

Le 03/03/2022 à 20:57, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> For the last day or so, it’s just been the quiet gibbering from resident
> psychotic half-wits: Maciej Wozniak, Pentcho Valev, Mitch Raemsch, and carl
> eto/thor stoneman. 
> 
> For a bit, we are free from long winded rants exuded by drunks and raging
> retired engineers. No Ken Seto, no Pat Dolan, no David Seppala, no Henry
> Wilson, no Richard Hertz, no Richard Lengrande, no “itsalllies”. 
> 
> Even the word salad tossers (Finlayson, DiEgidio, Fontenot, RichD) and the
> cackling jackdaws (Starmaker, the evanescent nym-shifter) have found
> nothing to make random noise about. 
> 
> Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity is
> finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits?

If 117 years later the theory of relativity is still disputed, the reason 
must be sought elsewhere than on the grievances of all those who do not 
believe in it.

Scapegoating them and insulting them is human, religious, and easy 
behavior.

This is mostly stupid behavior. We have to listen to them, and try to 
understand what is not working with them, and with us.

Because with us too, sometimes, our ass is not clean.

R.H. 

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

#579365

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/03/2022 à 20:57, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> For the last day or so, it’s just been the quiet gibbering from resident
>> psychotic half-wits: Maciej Wozniak, Pentcho Valev, Mitch Raemsch, and carl
>> eto/thor stoneman. 
>> 
>> For a bit, we are free from long winded rants exuded by drunks and raging
>> retired engineers. No Ken Seto, no Pat Dolan, no David Seppala, no Henry
>> Wilson, no Richard Hertz, no Richard Lengrande, no “itsalllies”. 
>> 
>> Even the word salad tossers (Finlayson, DiEgidio, Fontenot, RichD) and the
>> cackling jackdaws (Starmaker, the evanescent nym-shifter) have found
>> nothing to make random noise about. 
>> 
>> Could it be that 117 years after being introduced, special relativity is
>> finally unquestioned by anyone other than psychotic half-wits?
> 
> If 117 years later the theory of relativity is still disputed, the reason 
> must be sought elsewhere than on the grievances of all those who do not 
> believe in it.
> 
> Scapegoating them and insulting them is human, religious, and easy 
> behavior.

As is scapegoating the Flat Earth Society and those who believe the earth
is no older than 6406 years. 

> 
> This is mostly stupid behavior. We have to listen to them, and try to 
> understand what is not working with them, and with us.

No, I really don’t think it’s necessary to take length to understand what
is not working with people like you. The real problem with people like you
is that you’ve never bothered to learn the material from any textbooks and
have relied purely on online garbage. So it’s easy to understand what’s not
working — it’s your ingestion of garbage. Once you decide to study from a
real book on the subject, then you won’t have these confusions. 

Pat Dolan was here just a while ago and agreed to start reading through
Spacetime Physics. Unfortunately, he is also habitually inebriated and got
only midway through the second section of the first chapter before
collapsing. There the problem was not the material but his inebriation.
Again, very easy to understand the source of the problem. 

> 
> Because with us too, sometimes, our ass is not clean.
> 
> R.H. 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579371

Le 03/03/2022 à 22:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> Again, very easy to understand the source of the problem. 

We must be wary of what sometimes seems too easy.

Even if I repeat it, it is an extremely human behavior.

Personally, I try to listen to people before judging them.

R.H. 

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

#579373

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/03/2022 à 22:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> 
>> Again, very easy to understand the source of the problem. 
> 
> We must be wary of what sometimes seems too easy.
> 
> Even if I repeat it, it is an extremely human behavior.
> 
> Personally, I try to listen to people before judging them.
> 
> R.H. 
> 

Whether I listen to someone about physics depends strongly on whether
they’ve studied physics from books. If they haven’t, then their concerns or
opinions are essentially useless. Period. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579374

Le 03/03/2022 à 22:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Whether I listen to someone about physics depends strongly on whether
> they’ve studied physics from books. If they haven’t, then their concerns or
> opinions are essentially useless. Period. 

The problem is that the tone of your post reminds me of what religious 
people say.

It seems that if you don't understand everything, it's because you haven't 
read their texts well.

R.H. 

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

#579377

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/03/2022 à 22:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Whether I listen to someone about physics depends strongly on whether
>> they’ve studied physics from books. If they haven’t, then their concerns or
>> opinions are essentially useless. Period. 
> 
> The problem is that the tone of your post reminds me of what religious 
> people say.

The statement does not come from a religious stance.
It is a simple fact that uninformed opinions are much less valuable than
informed opinions.
It is not worthwhile to try to alter uninformed opinions. All that can be
done is to encourage becoming informed. 

> 
> It seems that if you don't understand everything, it's because you haven't 
> read their texts well.

In the case of relativity, that is true. If you do not understand
relativity, it is because you have not read the texts on relativity well.
Period. Physics is not a subject you can just figure out on your own. 

> 
> R.H. 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579378

On Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 23:22:17 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote: 
> > Le 03/03/2022 à 22:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit : 
> >> Whether I listen to someone about physics depends strongly on whether 
> >> they’ve studied physics from books. If they haven’t, then their concerns or 
> >> opinions are essentially useless. Period. 
> > 
> > The problem is that the tone of your post reminds me of what religious 
> > people say.
> The statement does not come from a religious stance. 

Sorry, poor halfbrain, but your uninformed opinion is much less
valuable, than informed opinions. Of course,  it is not worthwhile 
to try to alter uninformed opinions.  An idiot can never understand
he is an idiot, because he is an idiot. All that can be done is kick
his ass hard.

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

#579379

Le 03/03/2022 à 23:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> In the case of relativity, that is true. If you do not understand
> relativity, it is because you have not read the texts on relativity well.
> Period. Physics is not a subject you can just figure out on your own. 

Anyway, you think I should read what other people say without asking 
questions.

But that's anti-scientific.

In life there are two excesses.

Believe everything without ever thinking, and never believe the details 
that are given to you.

Life should be like a guitar string. If you do not stretch it enough, it 
makes a low and unpleasant sound.
But if you stretch it too much, it breaks.

As for the theory of relativity, it must first be studied well in order to 
then be able to talk about it.

But it goes both ways.

You also have to know how to point out things that are not clear when 
things are not clear.

This means that abusive denial should not be practiced.

R.H.

-- 
"Mais ne nous y trompons pas. Il n'y a pas que de la violence 
avec des armes. Il y a des situations de violence". 
Abbé Pierre.
<http://news2.nemoweb.net/?DataID=RYs106pSDLvVAvdppOUX_qxpIGs@jntp>

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

#579388

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 03/03/2022 à 23:22, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> In the case of relativity, that is true. If you do not understand
>> relativity, it is because you have not read the texts on relativity well.
>> Period. Physics is not a subject you can just figure out on your own. 
> 
> Anyway, you think I should read what other people say without asking 
> questions.
> 
> But that's anti-scientific.

I didn’t say don’t ask questions. Pat Dolan asked questions about specifics
in the book we picked, and I answered those questions. But you have to ask
questions about the actual content of the book. We can’t converse about
general ideas if you’ve not learned them from a book. 

> 
> In life there are two excesses.
> 
> Believe everything without ever thinking, and never believe the details 
> that are given to you.

Sure. Let’s discuss the book. 

> 
> Life should be like a guitar string. If you do not stretch it enough, it 
> makes a low and unpleasant sound.
> But if you stretch it too much, it breaks.
> 
> As for the theory of relativity, it must first be studied well in order to 
> then be able to talk about it.

Yes, from a book. 

> 
> But it goes both ways.
> 
> You also have to know how to point out things that are not clear when 
> things are not clear.

Fine then let’s discuss what’s not clear in the book. 

> 
> This means that abusive denial should not be practiced.
> 
> R.H.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579419

Le 04/03/2022 à 01:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> I didn’t say don’t ask questions. Pat Dolan asked questions about specifics
> in the book we picked, and I answered those questions. But you have to ask
> questions about the actual content of the book. We can’t converse about
> general ideas if you’ve not learned them from a book. 

You confuse "what is written in the books", and "cosmic truths".
You must be young enough to still think so.
It's been a long time since I made my life, and I realized, all over the 
place, that lots of things didn't fit; and even in "pharmaceutical", 
"social", "medical", "historical" truths.
I denounced the great problem of 95% of humanity: ease.

What does a human being in general want? Quickly read a few articles 
written by others, and believe yourself a Nobel Prize in Physics, then 
think about your vacation in Djerba-La-Douce.

Ease.

And if one tells this truth, this truth always generates hatred.

Or contempt.

Let us pose the case of the Titanic theory. What could be clearer than 
billions (yes, billions) of morons in the books and newspapers they read 
believe that the Titanis sank on April 12, 1912, in the cold waters of the 
North Atlantic, because he had been attacked by a nasty iceberg brought up 
from the Caribbean by the Gulf Stream.

We can't do anything against that.

And anyone who laughs about it, and knows the truth, is immediately called 
a "conspirator", because that's not what the books say.

Now, let's be clear, I love to read.

But always keeping a little critical spirit even if it's less hard-on than 
reading everything in a hurry and taking everything as divine truth.

R.H. 

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

#579420

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 04/03/2022 à 01:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> I didn’t say don’t ask questions. Pat Dolan asked questions about specifics
>> in the book we picked, and I answered those questions. But you have to ask
>> questions about the actual content of the book. We can’t converse about
>> general ideas if you’ve not learned them from a book. 
> 
> You confuse "what is written in the books", and "cosmic truths".

If you have not studied from a book you will not ever discover these
“cosmic truths” on your own. 

> You must be young enough to still think so.
> It's been a long time since I made my life, and I realized, all over the 
> place, that lots of things didn't fit; and even in "pharmaceutical", 
> "social", "medical", "historical" truths.
> I denounced the great problem of 95% of humanity: ease.
> 
> What does a human being in general want? Quickly read a few articles 
> written by others, and believe yourself a Nobel Prize in Physics, then 
> think about your vacation in Djerba-La-Douce.

If this applies to you, then I take it you have little interest in studying
from a book.  

> 
> Ease.
> 
> And if one tells this truth, this truth always generates hatred.
> 
> Or contempt.
> 
> Let us pose the case of the Titanic theory. What could be clearer than 
> billions (yes, billions) of morons in the books and newspapers they read 
> believe that the Titanis sank on April 12, 1912, in the cold waters of the 
> North Atlantic, because he had been attacked by a nasty iceberg brought up 
> from the Caribbean by the Gulf Stream.
> 
> We can't do anything against that.
> 
> And anyone who laughs about it, and knows the truth, is immediately called 
> a "conspirator", because that's not what the books say.
> 
> Now, let's be clear, I love to read.
> 
> But always keeping a little critical spirit even if it's less hard-on than 
> reading everything in a hurry and taking everything as divine truth.

Are you up to diving into a book or not? This is a yes or no question. 

If the answer is no, then I understand all I need to know about your
pretenses and aspirations. 

> 
> R.H. 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#579438

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 04/03/2022 à 01:29, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >> I didn’t say don’t ask questions. Pat Dolan asked questions about specifics
> >> in the book we picked, and I answered those questions. But you have to ask
> >> questions about the actual content of the book. We can’t converse about
> >> general ideas if you’ve not learned them from a book.
> >
> > You confuse "what is written in the books", and "cosmic truths".
> 
> If you have not studied from a book you will not ever discover these
> “cosmic truths” on your own.




There are no cosmic truths, only cosmic religion.

It's a ...belief.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#579436

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > Le 03/03/2022 à 22:11, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> >
> >> Again, very easy to understand the source of the problem.
> >
> > We must be wary of what sometimes seems too easy.
> >
> > Even if I repeat it, it is an extremely human behavior.
> >
> > Personally, I try to listen to people before judging them.
> >
> > R.H.
> >
> 
> Whether I listen to someone about physics depends strongly on whether
> they’ve studied physics from books. If they haven’t, then their concerns or
> opinions are essentially useless. Period.

You mean Textbooks, not books. There is a difference...but not to people
like Edwin F. Taylor.


> 
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

#579376

On Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 22:11:28 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:


> As is scapegoating the Flat Earth Society and those who believe the earth 
> is no older than 6406 years.

Or those believing The Shit of your idiot guru.

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

#579435

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Pat Dolan was here just a while ago and agreed to start reading through
> Spacetime Physics. Unfortunately, he is also habitually inebriated


WHAT? Pat is a guy???

Where are all these people coming from with the first name Pat???

Doesn't Pat stand for Patricia?


Pat is a girls name. No one calls guys..."Hey Pat"!




-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web