Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #611337 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500 |
| Last post | 2023-05-23 18:34 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
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.
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-21 17:57 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-23 02:51 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-05-23 11:35 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-23 10:36 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-24 03:08 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 15:52 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-27 00:27 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 18:29 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-26 21:15 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:21 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-27 20:34 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 00:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-28 12:09 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 11:10 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions "Jeremy Parker." <JP@not.com> - 2023-05-29 00:48 +0000
Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-28 21:10 -0500
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:15 +0000
Re: Misinterpretation runs in Uncle Jane's family (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:14 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-28 10:25 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-29 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 00:37 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:35 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 23:20 -0700
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 13:53 -0400
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Mario Rompuy <yrmu@mpoapryo.pp> - 2023-06-01 11:18 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Demetrius Krantz <admk@asukseuu.ss> - 2023-06-01 20:26 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 00:24 +0000
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Russell Akker <rekl@sssaarlk.ks> - 2023-06-03 07:48 +0000
Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-29 12:09 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:07 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 09:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 06:44 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 07:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 12:48 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:55 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:04 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-05-31 14:02 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Baudilio Marqueringh <qgiu@oimrggbo.eh> - 2023-05-31 20:21 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-31 15:27 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-01 23:47 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-01 19:51 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 01:27 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 21:12 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-06-02 04:44 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 00:53 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) AG <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:20 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-02 23:36 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:47 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-02 18:45 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-03 01:00 -0400
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-02 22:44 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-03 06:54 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-03 23:18 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-03 19:59 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> - 2023-06-05 04:31 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 21:30 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Reed Maessen <aeaa@nesasrsn.rd> - 2023-06-05 19:36 +0000
Godwin Alert whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-05 15:31 -0500
Re: Godwin Alert Feliciano Klerkse <lcso@raaeklen.kk> - 2023-06-05 20:36 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-06-13 16:10 -0400
Re: Godwin Alert Waldo Aart <wtld@aralowaa.dt> - 2023-06-13 23:34 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert Herman Rijnder <reir@ereremem.nn> - 2023-06-13 23:57 +0000
Re: Godwin Alert "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 17:39 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-06-01 23:03 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-06-01 19:37 -0500
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-31 20:59 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-05-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) Moody Schneijders <mmmc@dshheeds.sh> - 2023-06-03 11:02 +0000
Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-30 13:21 -0500
Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions Ed Romijnders <dddr@jrsnrmej.md> - 2023-05-23 18:34 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 14:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <e04a2354-6188-4e16-9edd-6be2966e8032n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #611933 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:55:37 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2023 12:48:11 -0500, whodat wrote: > > > On 5/31/2023 9:04 AM, Dono. wrote: > >> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 2:31:42 AM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:30:13 -0700, Dono. wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:48:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>> I can assure you Dr. John Parker was a real and brilliant person who > >>>>> unfortunately could not give up smoking...and so it killed him. I > >>>>> feel somewhat obliged to continue his work here....without any smoke > >>>>> but plenty of fire. > >>>>> -- > >>>>> -- lover of truth > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Interesting, > >>>> > >>>> Imbecility runs in your family touching all generations. You must > >>>> have the gene. > >>> How do you know I am a blood relative? After all, my name is not > >>> Parker.... but I wont tell you what it is because I don't trust anyone > >>> on your side. What would a raving maniac who is in a permanent state > >>> of self- > >>> delusion do to somebody else? > >>> -- > >>> -- lover of truth > >> I don't know, what would you do? > > > > Just like Arindam Banerjee over in sci.physics, Jane's antics are > > designed to get attention. > My posts deserve attention. How else can Physics be saved after 118 years > of insanity? > -- > -- lover of truth You are trying to do that from inside the asylum you reside in. It will work only to the extent of you providing entertainment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 14:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <u5824a$2fcni$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611910 |
On 5/31/2023 5:31 AM, Jane wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:30:13 -0700, Dono. wrote: > >> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:48:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: > >>> >>> I can assure you Dr. John Parker was a real and brilliant person who >>> unfortunately could not give up smoking...and so it killed him. I feel >>> somewhat obliged to continue his work here....without any smoke but >>> plenty of fire. >>> -- >>> -- lover of truth >> >> >> Interesting, >> >> Imbecility runs in your family touching all generations. You must have >> the gene. > > How do you know I am a blood relative? After all, my name is not > Parker.... You did claim John was your uncle, which does allow for an uncle by marriage, of course. Your name isn't meaningful, since John's sister could be your mother and you have your father's name. Or you are using a married name or some other name. You do, however, show the same type of imbecility as John did, which is circumstantial evidence of being related. But hardly definite, as not all imbeciles are related to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baudilio Marqueringh <qgiu@oimrggbo.eh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 20:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <u58a8i$3q3fq$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #611921 |
Volney wrote: >> How do you know I am a blood relative? After all, my name is not >> Parker.... > You did claim John was your uncle, which does allow for an uncle by > marriage, of course. Your name isn't meaningful, since John's sister > could be your mother and you have your father's name. Or you are using a *_Hunter_Biden_‘Would_Have_Been_In_Jail_Years_Ago’_* If He Were A Republican Says DeSantis Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has taken aim at Hunter Biden at his first 2024 campaign rally In Iowa He said if Hunter Biden were a Republican, he “would have been in jail years ago”. […] *_Hundreds_of_YouTubers_* Who Pushed Covid Vaccines During Pandemic *_Now_Have_Turbo_Cancers_* Do you remember all those YouTube social influencers pushing the experimental Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic? Many of them were paid by government and Big Pharma to influence their followers into thinking the vaccine roll-out […] *_WEF_orders_Ireland_* To Cull 65,000 Cows Every Three Years To Fight Climate Change Ireland is scrambling to comply with the directives issued by Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, with leaked government documents revealing modeling plans to cull 65,000 cattle every year for three years in order to comply […] *_Biden’s_Sexual_Assault_Accuser_* Tara Reade Defects To Russia Tara Reade, the former staffer who accused Joe Biden of sexually assaulting her in the 90’s, has sought *_assylum_in_Russia_*. Raede who said she had been living in fear for her life, spoke about […] Babies Breastfed by Mothers Who Took mRNA Vaccines Are Dropping Dead – *_Doctors_Baffled_* Babies who are being breastfed by mothers injected in mRNA vaccines are dropping dead in unusually large numbers, leaving some doctors and medical experts baffled. The phenomenon is being exposed by some brave medical experts […] European Union Issues Urgent Warning to Women: *_“COVID_Vaccines_Cause_Infertility”_* The European Union has issued an warning to pregnant women who are considering getting the COVID-19 vaccine, urging them to avoid the mRNA jabs because they cause infertility and spontaneous abortions. The European Medicines Agency […] Facebook Bombshell: *_‘COVID_Vaccines_Cause_New_Form_of_AIDS’_* Facebook has been forced to admit that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine destroys the immune system and leads to a new aggressive from of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Back in August 2022, independent outlet The Expose […] Posts navigation
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-05-31 15:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdpotoFqs7uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611921 |
On 5/31/2023 1:02 PM, Volney wrote: > On 5/31/2023 5:31 AM, Jane wrote: >> On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:30:13 -0700, Dono. wrote: >> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 10:48:09 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I can assure you Dr. John Parker was a real and brilliant person who >>>> unfortunately could not give up smoking...and so it killed him. I feel >>>> somewhat obliged to continue his work here....without any smoke but >>>> plenty of fire. >>>> -- >>>> -- lover of truth >>> >>> >>> Interesting, >>> >>> Imbecility runs in your family touching all generations. You must have >>> the gene. >> >> How do you know I am a blood relative? After all, my name is not >> Parker.... > > You did claim John was your uncle, which does allow for an uncle by > marriage, of course. Your name isn't meaningful, since John's sister > could be your mother and you have your father's name. Or you are using a > married name or some other name. You do, however, show the same type of > imbecility as John did, which is circumstantial evidence of being > related. But hardly definite, as not all imbeciles are related to each > other. Given the MPD there is no certainty that "Jane" herself did not earlier present as "Uncle John." The similarity in imbecility tends to support such a thesis. I hasten to add that what I am saying here is merely a possibility that has some legs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 23:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1764add0b76d8d4f$216$1029791$c1d34bd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #611931 |
On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:27:32 -0500, whodat wrote: > > Given the MPD there is no certainty that "Jane" herself did not earlier > present as "Uncle John." The similarity in imbecility tends to support > such a thesis. I hasten to add that what I am saying here is merely a > possibility that has some legs. You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is that you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having any reason to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being continually right because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. In other words, nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever whereas everything I say has potential to literally change the world. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 19:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <u5bats$2tt9i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #611995 |
On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:27:32 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> >> Given the MPD there is no certainty that "Jane" herself did not earlier >> present as "Uncle John." The similarity in imbecility tends to support >> such a thesis. I hasten to add that what I am saying here is merely a >> possibility that has some legs. > > You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is that > you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having any reason > to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being continually right > because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. In other words, > nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever whereas everything I > say has potential to literally change the world. The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 19:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdsstsFapp0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #611996 |
On 6/1/2023 6:51 PM, Volney wrote: > On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:27:32 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> >>> Given the MPD there is no certainty that "Jane" herself did not earlier >>> present as "Uncle John." The similarity in imbecility tends to support >>> such a thesis. I hasten to add that what I am saying here is merely a >>> possibility that has some legs. >> >> You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is that >> you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having any reason >> to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being continually right >> because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. In other words, >> nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever whereas everything I >> say has potential to literally change the world. > > The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize you're a > member of the Dunning-Kruger Club. While I've used various tactics in arguing with others in the past I've done my best to rely on facts where "Jane" is concerned. I feel badly about how this is going, but have been careful not to drive it. Jane's difficulties here are of her own making. The reason I didn't deal with MPD as an issue earlier, especially decades ago, is because although she reported it to me then there was no element of MPD in our interactions in the past. Unfortunately that's no longer true. Back around 1970 when my first wife died unexpectedly I became engrossed for a while with the classic three houses and three utilities problem and kept at seeking a solution for weeks despite being told there is no solution, so I know how difficult it can be to give up on something when deep in your bones it feels like there is a solution that everyone else has missed. But there comes a time when realization creates an opportunity to overcome that blindness and we need to seize the opportunity and progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 01:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1764b339b1ce1187$1$3770307$13d399db@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612001 |
On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:54:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 6/1/2023 6:51 PM, Volney wrote: >> On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote: >>> You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is >>> that you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having any >>> reason to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being >>> continually right because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. >>> In other words, nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever >>> whereas everything I say has potential to literally change the world. >> >> The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize you're >> a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club. > > While I've used various tactics in arguing with others in the past I've > done my best to rely on facts where "Jane" is concerned. The trouble is you cannot even identify the facts let alone understand them. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-01 21:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdt1g1FbhauU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #612002 |
On 6/1/2023 8:27 PM, Jane wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:54:14 -0500, whodat wrote: > >> On 6/1/2023 6:51 PM, Volney wrote: >>> On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote: > >>>> You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is >>>> that you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having any >>>> reason to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being >>>> continually right because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. >>>> In other words, nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever >>>> whereas everything I say has potential to literally change the world. >>> >>> The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize you're >>> a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club. >> >> While I've used various tactics in arguing with others in the past I've >> done my best to rely on facts where "Jane" is concerned. > > The trouble is you cannot even identify the facts let alone understand > them. You've had multiple opportunities to engage in meaningful discussion in this newsgroup and you fail to do so repeatedly, so I've not attempted to be "on point" because you've been driving the wrong way on a one way street. When one party (you) refuses to clarify their meaning and intent there is no discussion to be had. All your ad hominem attacks become meaningless, just like this one. What have you gained with this latest? Nothing. What have you achieved? You keep damaging yourself. Too bad. And it isn't just me you've failed with. Here's a book that could "potentially" help. <https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten-by-robert-fulghum/251495/item/30825076/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_frontlist_under_%2410&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhJOUo7-j_wIVI_bjBx1UWgwYEAQYAiABEgII7_D_BwE#idiq=30825076&edition=2148963> As I wrote earlier, the ball is in your court. Swish!!! Swing and miss yet again. I do hope you'll do better soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jane <Jane@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 04:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1764bdff269e9c66$159$943547$11d39bdb@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612004 |
On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 21:12:11 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 6/1/2023 8:27 PM, Jane wrote: >> On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:54:14 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >>> On 6/1/2023 6:51 PM, Volney wrote: >>>> On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote: >> >>>>> You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is >>>>> that you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having >>>>> any reason to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being >>>>> continually right because I have plenty of reason to know that I am. >>>>> In other words, nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever >>>>> whereas everything I say has potential to literally change the >>>>> world. >>>> >>>> The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize >>>> you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club. >>> >>> While I've used various tactics in arguing with others in the past >>> I've done my best to rely on facts where "Jane" is concerned. >> >> The trouble is you cannot even identify the facts let alone understand >> them. > > You've had multiple opportunities to engage in meaningful discussion in > this newsgroup and you fail to do so repeatedly, so I've not attempted > to be "on point" because you've been driving the wrong way on a one way > street. When one party (you) refuses to clarify their meaning and intent > there is no discussion to be had. All your ad hominem attacks become > meaningless, just like this one. What have you gained with this latest? Don't lie. Here are some examples of my 'meaningful' contributions. ************** The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its wave emission rate at the source, c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of light arriving at an object that is moving at speed v relative to the source must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ. The supposed 'frequency' of light is defined as c/Lambda, which has one and only one physical meaning...the rate at which wavelengths depart from the source or pass any other point. In the frame of the light itself, nothing oscillates during travel. If you check Maxwell's equations, you will see why. You will also see that light moves at c relative to its source but at any other speed relative to other objects. Assigning a frequency to a radio signal is excusable and quite practical even though, again, nothing actually oscillates while it is traveling. It is the frequency applied to the antenna and that to which a receiver's filters must be tuned. Light is not produced by an AC signal on any antenna or any other known oscillatory process. There is no apparent reason for believing that it and radio are fundamentally similar. **************** Regarding Michelson's moving mirror experiment. After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c + rv and V2 = c – rv. Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): P1 = L + (2E+ d1) + (L+d1) : P2 = L + (2E - d2) + (L - d2) Path difference = 2(d1+d2) Determining d1 and d2 using travel times: Mirror C moves distance d1 at speed v during time (2E+d1)/(c+rv) For P1: d1/v = (2E+d1)/(c+rv) and so d1 = 2Ev/(c+v(r-1)) Mirror D moves distance d2 at speed v during time (2E-d2)/(c-rv) For P2: d2/v = (2E-d2)/(c-rv) and so d2 = 2Ev/(c – v(r-1)) Path difference = 2(d1 + d2) = 8Evc/(c2-v2(r-1)2) ~ 8Ev/c for v<<c (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) Fringe displacement = 8Ev/cλ As can be seen, the value or r appears to have insignificant effect. However, for r = 0 or 1, there are Doppler changes in wavelength equal to (c+(2-r)v)/c and (c-(2-r)v)/c when reflecting from the moving mirrors. > **** So don't accuse me of not stating facts just because you, as a non- scientist, you have no idea of their meaning. -- -- lover of truth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 00:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdteeqFdasnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #612006 |
Top posting is rarely appropriate but in this case there's no need in
people going through the garbage when the answer is so simple. I asked
(along with others) a simple question ("define what you mean by
frequency in the question you asked using balls as a model") and
you have been evading answering that question ever since, just as
you continue doing right here and now.
All your misdirection and evasions for weeks got us to this point.
Like all cranks you believe that pointless arguing, ad hominem
attacks, and shifting goalposts give you a way out. They do not. You
have a flunking grade for your efforts.
There is nothing to be gained by continuing on this course, Jane.
You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems
several others have made similar points before dropping out of
discussions with you. Why do you persist when you have failed to
support your original thesis that light in transit has no
frequency but it has wavelength.
Please try to get your head on straight.
======================================================================
On 6/1/2023 11:44 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 21:12:11 -0500, whodat wrote:
>
>> On 6/1/2023 8:27 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:54:14 -0500, whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/1/2023 6:51 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2023 7:47 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> You know, the difference between your contributions here and mine is
>>>>>> that you can only continually claim that I am wrong without having
>>>>>> any reason to say so whereas I do not bother to brag about being
>>>>>> continually right because I have plenty of reason to know that I am.
>>>>>> In other words, nothing you say has any educational value whatsoever
>>>>>> whereas everything I say has potential to literally change the
>>>>>> world.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is: You don't realize
>>>>> you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club.
>>>>
>>>> While I've used various tactics in arguing with others in the past
>>>> I've done my best to rely on facts where "Jane" is concerned.
>>>
>>> The trouble is you cannot even identify the facts let alone understand
>>> them.
>>
>> You've had multiple opportunities to engage in meaningful discussion in
>> this newsgroup and you fail to do so repeatedly, so I've not attempted
>> to be "on point" because you've been driving the wrong way on a one way
>> street. When one party (you) refuses to clarify their meaning and intent
>> there is no discussion to be had. All your ad hominem attacks become
>> meaningless, just like this one. What have you gained with this latest?
>
> Don't lie.
> Here are some examples of my 'meaningful' contributions.
> **************
> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its wave emission rate
> at the source, c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest
> with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of
> light arriving at an object that is moving at speed v relative to the
> source must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ.
>
> The supposed 'frequency' of light is defined as c/Lambda, which has one
> and only one physical meaning...the rate at which wavelengths depart
> from the source or pass any other point. In the frame of the light
> itself, nothing oscillates during travel. If you check Maxwell's
> equations, you will
> see why. You will also see that light moves at c relative to its source
> but at any other speed relative to other objects.
> Assigning a frequency to a radio signal is excusable and quite practical
> even though, again, nothing actually oscillates while it is traveling.
> It is the frequency applied to the antenna and that to which a
> receiver's filters must be tuned. Light is not produced by an AC signal
> on any antenna or any other known oscillatory process. There is no
> apparent reason for believing that it and radio are fundamentally similar.
> ****************
> Regarding Michelson's moving mirror experiment.
>
> After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c + rv and V2 = c – rv.
>
> Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2):
> P1 = L + (2E+ d1) + (L+d1) :
> P2 = L + (2E - d2) + (L - d2)
> Path difference = 2(d1+d2)
>
> Determining d1 and d2 using travel times:
> Mirror C moves distance d1 at speed v during time (2E+d1)/(c+rv)
> For P1: d1/v = (2E+d1)/(c+rv) and so
> d1 = 2Ev/(c+v(r-1))
> Mirror D moves distance d2 at speed v during time (2E-d2)/(c-rv)
> For P2: d2/v = (2E-d2)/(c-rv) and so
> d2 = 2Ev/(c – v(r-1))
> Path difference = 2(d1 + d2) = 8Evc/(c2-v2(r-1)2)
> ~ 8Ev/c for v<<c
> (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2)
>
> Fringe displacement = 8Ev/cλ
>
> As can be seen, the value or r appears to have insignificant effect.
> However, for r = 0 or 1, there are Doppler changes in wavelength equal to
> (c+(2-r)v)/c and (c-(2-r)v)/c when reflecting from the moving mirrors.
>>
> ****
> So don't accuse me of not stating facts just because you, as a non-
> scientist, you have no idea of their meaning.
>
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AG <AsG@FO.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 23:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1764fae2ef1bc4ec$264$1253719$c7d34dd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612007 |
On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:53:24 -0500, whodat wrote: > You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several > others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with > you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original > thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. > All your misdirection and evasions for weeks got us to this point. > > Like all cranks you believe that pointless arguing, ad hominem attacks, > and shifting goalposts give you a way out. They do not. You have a > flunking grade for your efforts. > > There is nothing to be gained by continuing on this course, Jane. > > You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several > others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with > you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original > thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. You are certainly wasting your time here because you are no physicist and cannot understand a word of what I have said. This whole topic is way beyond your limited ability. By now you probably know I am right and SR is about to be exposed as nothing but a brilliant hoax but like your fellow member of the E-church, your pea-sized Einstein worshipping brain wont let the truth ever penetrate its impermeable layer of ignorance. > Please try to get another head. > > ====================================================================== > >> >> Don't lie. >> Here are some examples of my 'meaningful' contributions. >> ************** >> The so-called 'frequency' of light is defined as its wave emission rate >> at the source, c/λ. Light's arrival rate at any object which is at rest >> with the source has the same value. To be consistent, the frequency of >> light arriving at an object that is moving at speed v relative to the >> source must therefore be defined as (c+v)/λ. >> >> The supposed 'frequency' of light is defined as c/Lambda, which has one >> and only one physical meaning...the rate at which wavelengths depart >> from the source or pass any other point. In the frame of the light >> itself, nothing oscillates during travel. If you check Maxwell's >> equations, you will see why. You will also see that light moves at c >> relative to its source but at any other speed relative to other >> objects. >> Assigning a frequency to a radio signal is excusable and quite >> practical even though, again, nothing actually oscillates while it is >> traveling. >> It is the frequency applied to the antenna and that to which a >> receiver's filters must be tuned. Light is not produced by an AC signal >> on any antenna or any other known oscillatory process. There is no >> apparent reason for believing that it and radio are fundamentally >> similar. >> **************** >> Regarding Michelson's moving mirror experiment. >> >> After reflecting from moving mirrors V1 = c + rv and V2 = c – rv. >> >> Determining path lengths A back to B (P1) and B to A (P2): >> P1 = L + (2E+ d1) + (L+d1) : >> P2 = L + (2E - d2) + (L - d2) >> Path difference = 2(d1+d2) >> >> Determining d1 and d2 using travel times: >> Mirror C moves distance d1 at speed v during time (2E+d1)/(c+rv) >> For P1: d1/v = (2E+d1)/(c+rv) and so d1 = 2Ev/(c+v(r-1)) >> Mirror D moves distance d2 at speed v during time (2E-d2)/(c-rv) >> For P2: d2/v = (2E-d2)/(c-rv) and so d2 = 2Ev/(c – v(r-1)) >> Path difference = 2(d1 + d2) = 8Evc/(c2-v2(r-1)2) >> ~ 8Ev/c for v<<c (Note, (r-1)2 has the same value for r = 0 and r=2) >> >> Fringe displacement = 8Ev/cλ >> >> As can be seen, the value or r appears to have insignificant effect. >> However, for r = 0 or 1, there are Doppler changes in wavelength equal >> to (c+(2-r)v)/c and (c-(2-r)v)/c when reflecting from the moving >> mirrors. >>> >> **** >> So don't accuse me of not stating facts just because you, as a non- >> scientist, you have no idea of their meaning. >> >> >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <1764fbc638f2fbea$265$1253719$c7d34dd6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612032 |
On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 23:20:13 +0000, AG wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:53:24 -0500, whodat wrote: > > >> You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several >> others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with >> you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original >> thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. Go away you stupid imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 18:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdvdc5FmffcU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #612034 |
On 6/2/2023 6:36 PM, Androcles' Ghost wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 23:20:13 +0000, AG wrote: > >> On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:53:24 -0500, whodat wrote: >> >> >>> You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several >>> others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with >>> you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original >>> thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. > > Go away you stupid imbecile. Even as a self-pronounced ghost you're worthless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 18:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <kdvd8mFmffcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #612032 |
On 6/2/2023 6:20 PM, AG wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 00:53:24 -0500, whodat wrote: > > >> You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several >> others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with >> you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original >> thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. > >> All your misdirection and evasions for weeks got us to this point. >> >> Like all cranks you believe that pointless arguing, ad hominem attacks, >> and shifting goalposts give you a way out. They do not. You have a >> flunking grade for your efforts. >> >> There is nothing to be gained by continuing on this course, Jane. >> >> You have offered nothing worthy of my time and effort. It seems several >> others have made similar points before dropping out of discussions with >> you. Why do you persist when you have failed to support your original >> thesis that light in transit has no frequency but it has wavelength. > > You are certainly wasting your time here because you are no physicist and > cannot understand a word of what I have said. This whole topic is way > beyond your limited ability. By now you probably know I am right and SR > is about to be exposed as nothing but a brilliant hoax but like your > fellow member of the E-church, your pea-sized Einstein worshipping brain > wont let the truth ever penetrate its impermeable layer of ignorance. > >> > Please try to get another head. >> >> ====================================================================== <...> Is this yet another persona in the "Jane" body emerging? As far as professional physicists who understand what you said are concerned, nobody has agreed with you, nor will they. Science is, in the long term, self-correcting. Where you're concerned that self-correction has emerged in its full glory. The only recognition available to you is as a crank. The time has come for me to begin ignoring you. I had originally hoped for a much better outcome. I was going to suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A for you, but I am afraid even that is beyond your capacity to comprehend. Goodbye, Jane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-03 01:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <u5ehdr$3fjlr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #612035 |
On 6/2/2023 7:45 PM, whodat wrote: > Is this yet another persona in the "Jane" body emerging? As far as > professional physicists who understand what you said are concerned, > nobody has agreed with you, nor will they. Science is, in the long term, > self-correcting. Where you're concerned that self-correction has emerged > in its full glory. The only recognition available to you is as a crank. > > The time has come for me to begin ignoring you. I had originally hoped > for a much better outcome. > > I was going to suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A > for you, but I am afraid even that is beyond your capacity to > comprehend. Goodbye, Jane. > It appears that this "Jane" is definitely not the retiring professor "Jane" you mentioned, a highly intelligent person. Our "Jane" appears to have inherited whatever bad genes her uncle had that interferes with ordinary logical thought.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-02 22:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <76ea91aa-4fa4-4724-be8e-0766e728af80n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612051 |
On Saturday, 3 June 2023 at 07:00:46 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 6/2/2023 7:45 PM, whodat wrote: > > > Is this yet another persona in the "Jane" body emerging? As far as > > professional physicists who understand what you said are concerned, > > nobody has agreed with you, nor will they. Science is, in the long term, > > self-correcting. Where you're concerned that self-correction has emerged > > in its full glory. The only recognition available to you is as a crank. > > > > The time has come for me to begin ignoring you. I had originally hoped > > for a much better outcome. > > > > I was going to suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A > > for you, but I am afraid even that is beyond your capacity to > > comprehend. Goodbye, Jane. > > > It appears that this "Jane" is definitely not the retiring professor > "Jane" you mentioned, a highly intelligent person. > > Our "Jane" appears to have inherited whatever bad genes her uncle had And do you still believe that adjusting clocks to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy means "Newton mode? You're such an amazing idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your insane bunch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-03 06:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <ke0o00FssmdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #612051 |
On 6/3/2023 12:00 AM, Volney wrote: > On 6/2/2023 7:45 PM, whodat wrote: > >> Is this yet another persona in the "Jane" body emerging? As far as >> professional physicists who understand what you said are concerned, >> nobody has agreed with you, nor will they. Science is, in the long term, >> self-correcting. Where you're concerned that self-correction has emerged >> in its full glory. The only recognition available to you is as a crank. >> >> The time has come for me to begin ignoring you. I had originally hoped >> for a much better outcome. >> >> I was going to suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A >> for you, but I am afraid even that is beyond your capacity to >> comprehend. Goodbye, Jane. >> > It appears that this "Jane" is definitely not the retiring professor > "Jane" you mentioned, a highly intelligent person. > > Our "Jane" appears to have inherited whatever bad genes her uncle had > that interferes with ordinary logical thought. I had held out hope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Androcles' Ghost <AsG@FO.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-03 23:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <17654958dc7257d2$1353$525944$cbd341d6@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #612058 |
On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 06:54:33 -0500, whodat wrote: > On 6/3/2023 12:00 AM, Volney wrote: > >>> >>> I was going to suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jjFjC30-4A for >>> you, but I am afraid even that is beyond your capacity to comprehend. >>> Goodbye, Jane. >>> >> It appears that this "Jane" is definitely not the retiring professor >> "Jane" you mentioned, a highly intelligent person. >> >> Our "Jane" appears to have inherited whatever bad genes her uncle had >> that interferes with ordinary logical thought. > > I had held out hope. I too had held out hope of having useful scientific discussion here...but all I get is idiocy and insults. -- It would be easier to teach Physics to a Ferret than a Faithful Follower of the E-religion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-06-03 19:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Uncle Jane and MPD (was Re: The Light Clock Thought Experiment - Questions) |
| Message-ID | <dea5118d-0d4f-4ab7-8395-79b671029c1fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612092 |
On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 4:18:03 PM UTC-7, Androcles' Ghost wrote: > I too had held out hope of having useful scientific discussion here...but > all I get is idiocy and insults. ... except that you ARE just the source idiocy and insults... I thought you said you were leaving? What's keeping you? The sooner, the better...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web