Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581190 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-28 08:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-03-28 17:27 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 08:59 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 16:11 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-03-28 18:13 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 09:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-30 20:41 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-04-01 14:06 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-01 14:48 +0200
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 09:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 09:29 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 09:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 17:00 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 13:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 21:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 07:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 22:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 16:58 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 11:45 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-29 19:22 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:43 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 16:58 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 13:06 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 17:16 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 13:45 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 21:28 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Hewitt Bliss <wet@vcbcn.er> - 2022-03-28 17:01 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 11:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-28 13:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 21:23 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-28 14:39 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 07:24 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-29 14:17 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 15:02 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 09:38 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 10:16 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 10:38 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 16:27 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-30 23:39 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 15:34 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 14:03 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-30 14:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 08:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-31 09:39 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:48 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 16:46 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 17:05 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:10 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 13:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 19:03 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:41 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 15:56 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 18:52 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 15:01 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 12:48 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Jabe Jukado <jukj@u3ecs.jp> - 2022-04-06 18:56 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 14:23 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 21:54 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 22:02 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 15:09 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:37 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-31 14:20 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 14:55 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-02 14:05 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-30 10:56 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 18:30 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 14:43 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-30 12:01 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 16:49 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 13:51 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-30 14:18 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-30 20:05 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-03-31 09:34 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 16:56 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 11:21 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 18:52 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 12:43 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 20:19 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 22:00 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 01:21 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-31 23:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:00 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 07:13 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 15:20 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 09:20 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 16:32 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 10:12 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-01 15:23 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 20:27 +0000
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 14:33 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 16:26 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-01 17:01 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-02 11:29 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-02 12:08 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:51 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-31 23:05 -0400
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:27 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-29 14:15 -0700
Re: Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks Hewitt Bliss <wet@vcbcn.er> - 2022-03-28 17:27 +0000
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <365ddef1-4345-4aca-ac21-0b6d941885c9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581469 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 7:05:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 3/30/2022 5:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:51:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the > >>>>>> speed is c? > >>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." > >>>> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof), > >>>> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer. > >>> > >>> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the > >>> statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter. > >>>> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly. > >>>>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or > >>>>>>> decelerating. > >>>>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases? > >>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." > >>>> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones > >>>> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply? > >>> > >>> No, of course not. > >> Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is > >> the observer. Your claim makes no sense. > > > > You make no sense. You seem to believe that if Einstein is talking about > > one thing on page 1, he must be talking about the same thing all pages. > If the only thing he talks about in the second postulate is the speed of > light relative to the emitter, but throughout the paper he talks about > the speed of light relative to various observers, why even mention that > unused postulate? > But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you > said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to > the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY. > But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! > So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used! You clearly do not understand what a postulate is. Let me see if I can summarize for you Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity: He says, Experiments with magnets and conductors indicate that if we ASSUME that two things are true, then we get a THEORY that does not require a luminiferous ether in order to measure motion. Those two ASSUMPTIONS (also known as "postulates") are: (1) All experiments work the same way in a closed inertial system, and (2) Light is always emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter. Those two ASSUMPTIONS may appear to be contradictory, but the THEORY to be described will show that they are NOT contradictory. Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections. each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them. In the first section he describes "simultaneity" and how things may sometimes seem simultaneous when in reality they are not. It all depends upon how you view time. The second section is about lengths and times. The faster you travel, the less time it takes to get from point A to point B. In the fourth section he describes why "a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." It is because time ticks at a slower rate at the faster moving equator. In the tenth section he describes how an electron gains mass when it is forced to move. That force slows down time for the electron. And there isn't enough force in the universe to make the photon travel at the speed of light. I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory, the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 16:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t24mf0$5dg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581516 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 7:05:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 3/30/2022 5:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:51:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the >>>>>>>> speed is c? >>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." >>>>>> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand >>>>>> what is written (or the intention thereof), >>>>>> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but >>>>>> that the observer can be any (inertial) observer. >>>>> >>>>> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the >>>>> statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter. >>>>>> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that >>>>>> sentence to see if they understood it correctly. >>>>>>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or >>>>>>>>> decelerating. >>>>>>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases? >>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer." >>>>>> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that >>>>>> any (inertial) observer is/are the ones >>>>>> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. >>>>>> Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it >>>>>> like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply? >>>>> >>>>> No, of course not. >>>> Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is >>>> the observer. Your claim makes no sense. >>> >>> You make no sense. You seem to believe that if Einstein is talking about >>> one thing on page 1, he must be talking about the same thing all pages. >> If the only thing he talks about in the second postulate is the speed of >> light relative to the emitter, but throughout the paper he talks about >> the speed of light relative to various observers, why even mention that >> unused postulate? > >> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you >> said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to >> the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY. > >> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! > >> So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used! > > You clearly do not understand what a postulate is. Let me see if I can > summarize for you Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity: > > He says, Experiments with magnets and conductors indicate that if we > ASSUME that two things are true, then we get a THEORY that does not > require a luminiferous ether in order to measure motion. Those two > ASSUMPTIONS (also known as "postulates") are: (1) All experiments > work the same way in a closed inertial system, Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what the words mean. Here, I’m going to take the easy gamble that you don’t actually know what “closed system” means and what “inertial system” means. Guessing here would not be a good idea. > and (2) Light is always > emitted at c regardless of the speed of the emitter. Those two > ASSUMPTIONS may appear to be contradictory, but the THEORY to be > described will show that they are NOT contradictory. > > Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections. > each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them. > > In the first section he describes "simultaneity" and how things may > sometimes seem simultaneous when in reality they are not. It all > depends upon how you view time. > > The second section is about lengths and times. The faster you travel, > the less time it takes to get from point A to point B. > > In the fourth section he describes why "a balance-clock at the equator > must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar > clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions." > It is because time ticks at a slower rate at the faster moving equator. > > In the tenth section he describes how an electron gains mass when it > is forced to move. That force slows down time for the electron. And > there isn't enough force in the universe to make the photon travel at > the speed of light. > > I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is > an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how > light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory, > the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fb80ce2-36f2-4af9-9a52-85be94664ddbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581524 |
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > the words mean. To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 18:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t24t92$1elu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581531 |
Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >> the words mean. > > To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s language devised by them for purpose. Whether you don’t care for it is irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a845705-2444-4802-bf92-f986bfc373f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581532 |
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >> the words mean. > > > > To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > > > Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > language devised by them for purpose. For the purpose of brainwashing new generations of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > Whether you don’t care for it is > irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then > there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to > discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement. Well, you're an idiot, sure, but I think you're still able to guess how much I care for your requirements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t252cu$1rqj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581538 |
Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>> the words mean. >>> >>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>> >> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >> language devised by them for purpose. > > For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > means they know what the words mean. Sorry. Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is irrelevant to that, and they don’t have to communicate with the physics community if they don’t want to. > >> Whether you don’t care for it is >> irrelevant. If you don’t want to discuss physics intelligently, then >> there’s absolutely no pressure to learn any physics. If you do want to >> discuss physics intelligently, though, it’s going to be a requirement. > > Well, you're an idiot, sure, but I think you're still able to > guess how much I care for your requirements. > Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 22:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b5f64ea-c480-40c8-a988-8dc99bc60c4cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581543 |
On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>> the words mean. > >>> > >>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>> > >> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >> language devised by them for purpose. > > > > For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > > of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > > means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > irrelevant to that No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not calling AH like that when talking to them just because they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain? > Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what > you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about > physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy. It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of your vodka, or alike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 01:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t2623v$1q65$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581573 |
On 4/1/2022 1:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not > calling AH like that when talking to them just because > they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain? > >> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what >> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about >> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy. > > It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like > they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of > your vodka, or alike. I call Godwin. Maciej loses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-31 23:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc1d2737-65ef-43a4-902a-f8c4372f6f7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581577 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 07:21:09 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/1/2022 1:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not > > calling AH like that when talking to them just because > > they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain? > > > >> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what > >> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about > >> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy. > > > > It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like > > they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of > > your vodka, or alike. > I call Godwin. Maciej loses. No, stupid Mike. You're of course too dumb to notice, but I'm not comparing your fellow idiot Odd to nazis here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t26t19$1opr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581573 |
Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>>>> the words mean. >>>>> >>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>>>> >>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >>>> language devised by them for purpose. >>> >>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations >>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way >>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. >> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for >> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is >> irrelevant to that > > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. No, that’s not an example of jargon. You can look that word “jargon” up. It’s no wonder you don’t like jargon, you don’t even know what the word means. > You're not > calling AH like that when talking to them just because > they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain? > >> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what >> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about >> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy. > > It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like > they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of > your vodka, or alike. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 07:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0b0350c-49f8-4fa0-901e-0cb3d2120bbfn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581591 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>>>> the words mean. > >>>>> > >>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>>>> > >>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >>>> language devised by them for purpose. > >>> > >>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > >>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > >>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > >> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > >> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > >> irrelevant to that > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. > No, that’s not an example of jargon. Because an idiot woodworker says so? If "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", poor halfbrain? > You can look that word “jargon” up. So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t2758r$1v5d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581602 |
Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>>>>>> the words mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. >>>>> >>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations >>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way >>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. >>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for >>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is >>>> irrelevant to that >>> >>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling >>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. >> No, that’s not an example of jargon. > > Because an idiot woodworker says so? If > "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", > poor halfbrain? > Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking special meanings specific to that community. On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning special to the community of physics. Duh. As mentioned before, if you don’t know what “jargon” means, you can look that word up. >> You can look that word “jargon” up. > > So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses > about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e780a87-5a76-45a5-a873-9f4ad9ef8179n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581609 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>>>>>> the words mean. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > >>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > >>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > >>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > >>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > >>>> irrelevant to that > >>> > >>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > >>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. > >> No, that’s not an example of jargon. > > > > Because an idiot woodworker says so? If > > "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", > > poor halfbrain? > > > Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking > special meanings specific to that community. How do you know? > On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe that the mad concepts of your insane guru are proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t279fe$5ap$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581617 |
Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>>>>>>>> the words mean. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations >>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way >>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. >>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for >>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is >>>>>> irrelevant to that >>>>> >>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling >>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. >>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. >>> >>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If >>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", >>> poor halfbrain? >>> >> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking >> special meanings specific to that community. > > How do you know? > >> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning > > Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. > The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > halfbrain. > Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fc70b71-5cce-411a-9e4b-66f7dab93128n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581620 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>>>>>>>> the words mean. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > >>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > >>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > >>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > >>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > >>>>>> irrelevant to that > >>>>> > >>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > >>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. > >>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. > >>> > >>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If > >>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", > >>> poor halfbrain? > >>> > >> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking > >> special meanings specific to that community. > > > > How do you know? > > > >> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning > > > > Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. > > The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > > halfbrain. > > > Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. Speaking about dictionaries, Bod - https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe that the mad concepts of your insane guru are proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 15:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t27jf1$qn4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581628 |
On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations >>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way >>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. >>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for >>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is >>>>>>>> irrelevant to that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling >>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. >>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. >>>>> >>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If >>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", >>>>> poor halfbrain? >>>>> >>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking >>>> special meanings specific to that community. >>> >>> How do you know? >>> >>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning >>> >>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. >>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great >>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe >>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are >>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor >>> halfbrain. >>> >> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. > > Speaking about dictionaries, Bod - > https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense > > And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > halfbrain. > Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz. You really do need to look up "jargon". BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the phrase, is the jargon. It describes a particular type of time measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a jargon phrase "proper time" evolved. Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de6ccbc8-6c6c-42b5-934b-f986a28ebd83n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581635 |
On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 21:23:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, > >>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what > >>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s > >>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations > >>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way > >>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. > >>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for > >>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is > >>>>>>>> irrelevant to that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling > >>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. > >>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. > >>>>> > >>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If > >>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", > >>>>> poor halfbrain? > >>>>> > >>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking > >>>> special meanings specific to that community. > >>> > >>> How do you know? > >>> > >>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning > >>> > >>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. > >>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > >>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > >>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > >>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > >>> halfbrain. > >>> > >> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. > > > > Speaking about dictionaries, Bod - > > https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense > > > > And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great > > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe > > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are > > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor > > halfbrain. > > > Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz. > > You really do need to look up "jargon". Is it 42, stupid Mike? > Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a > great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not > a word or short phrase. If it was "great leader AH" it would be fine. The logic of stupid Mike and his fellow idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t27n7t$g1q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581635 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says, >>>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what >>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s >>>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations >>>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way >>>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry. >>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for >>>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is >>>>>>>>> irrelevant to that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling >>>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. >>>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If >>>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious", >>>>>> poor halfbrain? >>>>>> >>>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking >>>>> special meanings specific to that community. >>>> >>>> How do you know? >>>> >>>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning >>>> >>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense. >>>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great >>>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe >>>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are >>>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor >>>> halfbrain. >>>> >>> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary. >> >> Speaking about dictionaries, Bod - >> https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense >> >> And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great >> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe >> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are >> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor >> halfbrain. >> > Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz. > > You really do need to look up "jargon". > > BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the > phrase, is the jargon. Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that for Woz, jargon is despicable in itself. Keep in mind that for Woz, the whole deal is “fuck you”. As in “fuck your physics,” “fuck your jargon”, “fuck your non-common-sense concepts”, “fuck the ground you walk on”. He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological. He knows it, doesn’t care, gotta get it out. > It describes a particular type of time > measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be > tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a > jargon phrase "proper time" evolved. > > Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a > great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not > a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like > "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62476FA2.3D9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #581639 |
Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 16:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62478A20.2C07@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #581645 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying. > > Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different. -- 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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web