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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #381273 > unrolled thread

Idiocy Called Twin Paradox

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

Contents

  Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-10 11:59 -0700
    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 09:32 -0700
      Re: Idiocy Called Pentcho Valev's Assertions Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-11 10:31 -0700
    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 14:45 -0700
      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-04-11 17:35 -0600
      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-11 22:53 -0700
        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 07:35 -0700
          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-12 23:30 +0200
    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 02:21 -0700
      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 04:50 -0700
        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 05:06 -0700
          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 06:19 -0700
            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 06:37 -0700
              Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 06:52 -0700
                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 08:04 -0700
                  Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 08:08 -0700
                    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 10:52 -0700
                      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 11:03 -0700
                        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 16:38 -0700
                          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 20:39 -0700
                            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 08:58 -0700
                              Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 09:11 -0700
                                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-15 11:37 -0700
                                  Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 03:31 -0700
                                    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 08:15 -0700
                                      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 08:26 -0700
                                        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 10:29 -0700
                                          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 19:35 -0700
                                            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 20:23 -0700
                                          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 08:43 -0700
                                            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 12:42 -0700
                                              Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 13:11 -0700
                                                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-25 13:37 -0700
                                                  Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 00:21 -0700
                                                    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 07:37 -0700
                                                      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 10:43 -0700
                                                        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 12:58 -0700
                                                          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-26 22:04 -0700
                                                            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 04:05 -0700
                                                              Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 05:55 -0700
                                                                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 10:03 -0700
                                                                  Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 12:35 -0700
                                                                    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 13:04 -0700
                                                                      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-27 20:39 -0700
                                                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-25 22:48 -0700
                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-14 17:46 +0200
                  Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 10:53 -0700
                    Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-14 21:54 +0200
                      Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:10 -0700
                        Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-14 23:36 +0200
                          Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 15:09 -0700
                            Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 23:13 -0700
              Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 08:01 -0700
                Re: Idiocy Called Twin Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-14 17:47 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#381273 — Idiocy Called Twin Paradox

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older. Note, however, that a discussion of acceleration is not required to quantitatively understand the paradox..."

This is idiotic isn't it? The traveling twin turns around, and this act of his miraculously makes the distant stationary twin on the Earth older. The video below elaborates on the idiocy. During the very brief moment when the traveling twin turns around, he experiences acceleration or "gravitational field" (the turn-around and the acceleration are absent in some twin-paradox scenarios - there is no "gravitational field"). Einsteinians explain that the traveling twin "will BELIEVE that this gravitational field exists throughout all of space, and that this gravitational field is causing the Earth and the rest of the universe to accelerate towards him". And then a second belief: "Therefore, Adam will BELIEVE that the gravitational field is causing time on Earth to flow much faster than time on his ship". In short, the solution of the twin paradox is based on the beliefs of the traveling twin during the turning-around period, beliefs which are obviously false but are nevertheless ascribed to the traveling twin by Einsteinians:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjHLboK2M1g 
 "For Adam to return back to Earth, he will eventually need to fire his rockets to turn around. When he fires his rockets, Adam will still continue to think that his spaceship is standing still. However, in order to believe that his spaceship is standing still, he needs to also believe that there is now a gravitational field present that is cancelling out the force from his rockets. Adam will believe that this gravitational field exists throughout all of space, and that this gravitational field is causing the Earth and the rest of the universe to accelerate towards him. (...) Therefore, Adam will believe that the gravitational field is causing time on Earth to flow much faster than time on his ship. It is only during the very brief moment when Adam is firing his rockets to turn around that he believes this external gravitational field is present. For the remainder of his trip after he turns his rockets off, Adam will again view time on Earth as moving slowly. Nevertheless, during the very brief moments when he fires his engines, he sees time on Earth flowing so extremely fast that this far more than compensates for the fact that he sees time on Earth flowing slowly during the rest of his journey. This is why Adam will believe that more time has passed for Sarah than for him when he returns." 

This idiotic "solution" of the twin paradox was fabricated by Einstein in 1918 ("A homogenous gravitational field appears" which can only reach the Earth in the beliefs of the traveling twin): 

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#381364

Here is the original idiocy: 

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
 ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." 

Why is the moving clock slow and the stationary one fast? No such asymmetry follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What validly follows is that the moving clock is slow as judged from the stationary system, and the stationary clock is slow as judged from the moving system. Einstein's conclusion above (the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary one) is invalid - it does not follow from the postulates. So even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one is false), there would be no difference in the clocks' readings. 

Pentcho Valev

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

#381366 — Re: Idiocy Called Pentcho Valev's Assertions

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 10:32:54 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Here is the original idiocy: 

It is idiocy only to an idiot.

> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ 
>
> Why is the moving clock slow and the stationary one fast?

Because the observer is at rest in the stationary system, of course.

> No such asymmetry follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates. What validly
> follows is that the moving clock is slow as judged from the stationary
> system, and the stationary clock is slow as judged from the moving system.

Exactly.

> Einstein's conclusion above (the moving clock "lags behind" the stationary
> one) is invalid - it does not follow from the postulates.

Of course it's valid, demented one.  He didn't "judge" it from the moving
system.

> So even if Einstein's 1905 postulates were true (actually the second one
> is false),

Actually, it's not, as confirmed by a multitude of experiments:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates

> there would be no difference in the clocks' readings.
>
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Pentcho's ridiculous assertion is refuted by experiment.  He is full of
baloney.

Gary
 

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

#381385

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> This is idiotic isn't it? 

Only for idiots who cant comprehend what is actually meant.  

> The traveling twin turns around, and this act of his miraculously 
> makes the distant stationary twin on the Earth older. 

?? No, not at all. SR doest say that. Perhaps some authors *word it* that way, or some readers misinterprets whats written (like you), but SR doest say that. 
Do the math and see for yourself what SR says.

> The video below elaborates on the idiocy.

You are ready to believe in the vids, but not on the math. Why not?

<rest of crap snipped>

 

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

#381404

On 4/11/16 3:45 PM, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
>> The traveling twin turns around, and this act of his miraculously
>> makes the distant stationary twin on the Earth older.
>

The acceleration by the traveler causes the traveler's conclusions about 
the home twin's current age to rapidly change (relative to the 
traveler's own rate of ageing).  If the traveler is accelerating TOWARD 
the home twin, he will conclude that she is rapidly getting older 
(assuming their separation is sufficiently great).  If he is 
accelerating AWAY FROM her, he will conclude that she is rapidly getting 
younger (again assuming their separation is sufficiently great).  But in 
neither case does the home twin conclude that anything unusual is 
happening to her rate of ageing. Nor do any other inertial observers 
conclude that her rate of ageing is changing because of the traveler's 
acceleration.  It strictly has to do with the TRAVELER'S PERSPECTIVE of 
her rate of ageing.  And it is the rapid ageing of the home twin 
(according to the traveler) during the turnaround that results in the 
agreement of the two twins about their respective ages when they are 
reunited, given that the traveler says she aged more slowly than he did 
on the steady-speed portions of the trip.

-- 
   https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

   "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, 
December 1999, p629.

   All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".

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

#381419

W dniu poniedziałek, 11 kwietnia 2016 23:45:15 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:59:09 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > This is idiotic isn't it? 
> 
> Only for idiots who cant comprehend what is actually meant.  
> 
> > The traveling twin turns around, and this act of his miraculously 
> > makes the distant stationary twin on the Earth older. 
> 
> ?? No, not at all. SR doest say that. Perhaps some authors *word it* that way, or some readers misinterprets whats written (like you), but SR doest say that. 
> Do the math and see for yourself what SR says.
> 
> > The video below elaborates on the idiocy.
> 
> You are ready to believe in the vids, but not on the math. Why not?

When we're talking about math and believing it, 
let's remind that your moronic guru rejected 
its oldest and one of most trustful pieces, 
because it was no fun for him.
But, of course, his Shit isn't math. It doesn't
meet formal requirements.

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

#381440

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:53:59 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>  It doesn't
> meet formal requirements.

But it does. You are just a reality denier. And what do you know about math? You admitted yourself that you cant even do highschool math. 

Instead of making yourself look like a fool, why dont you go take a few adult classes or something, and come back in a few years when you will be ready. 

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

#381464

Użytkownik "rotchm"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9cb3c1ef-4393-49f7-9b07-0cb4bd44b80b@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:53:59 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>  It doesn't
> meet formal requirements.

|But it does. You are just a reality denier.

No it doesn't. You are just a reality denier.

| And what do you know about math? You admitted yourself that you cant even 
do highschool math.

And, of course, stupid, lying shit.

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

#381610

Einstein was a subtle practitioner of doublethink - he was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same conviction and without any sign of remorse. So before the advent of Einstein's general relativity, the traveling-twin-is-younger tale was more than vulnerable in an analysis taking into account only the valid conclusions from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The youthfulness of the traveling twin was totally unjustifiable - the stationary twin sees his brother's clock running slow, the traveling twin sees his brother's clock running slow, and "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration is immaterial, as Einstein had implicitly assumed in his 1905 paper and explicitly announced in 1911: 

http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368 
 Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." 

In 1918 "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration, which had been immaterial a couple of years before, became crucial: 

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Einstein 1918: "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. (...) According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Today's Einsteinians are all doublethinkers but not as subtle as Einstein. They accept both thesis and antithesis - the acceleration is immaterial and crucial at the same time - but in public they defend either one or the other - never both. So half of the Einsteinians teach that "the sudden change of direction" involving acceleration is immaterial, the other half teach that it is crucial:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
 Tim Maudlin: "But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages." 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
 Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
 Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained." 

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. (...) For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." 

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html 
 John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images/articles/f_pic31.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#381618

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:21:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [The usual delusional baloney.]

> [Pentcho is] a subtle practitioner of doublethink

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

#381624

W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 13:50:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:21:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > [The usual delusional baloney.]
> 
> > [Pentcho is] a subtle practitioner of doublethink

While relativistic morons are incredibly impudent 
practitioners of doublethink.

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

#381635

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:06:06 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 13:50:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:21:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > [The usual delusional baloney.]
> > 
> > > [Pentcho is] a subtle practitioner of doublethink
> 
> While [reality-denying] morons like [Wozzie-boy] are incredibly impudent 
> practitioners of doublethink.

Get a life, dude!

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

#381638

W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 15:19:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:06:06 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 13:50:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:21:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [The usual delusional baloney.]
> > > 
> > > > [Pentcho is] a subtle practitioner of doublethink
> > 
> > While [reality-denying] morons like [Wozzie-boy] are incredibly impudent 
> > practitioners of doublethink.
> 
> Get a life, dude!

Reality is - I didn't write what you wrote I wrote.
And real clocks are indicating t'=t...
And real observers see immobile trees and buildings...
So what can a brainwashed relativistic moron do?
He can lie.

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

#381642

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:37:47 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 15:19:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:06:06 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 13:50:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 3:21:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [The usual delusional baloney.]
> > > > 
> > > > > [Pentcho is] a subtle practitioner of doublethink
> > > 
> > > While [reality-denying] morons like [Wozzie-boy] are incredibly impudent 
> > > practitioners of doublethink.
> > 
> > Get a life, dude!
> 
> Reality is - I didn't write what you wrote I wrote.
> And real clocks are indicating t'=t...
> And real observers see immobile trees and buildings...
> So what can a brainwashed relativistic moron do?
> He can lie.

Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against Galilean relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an idiot religionist lunatic like Gary.

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

#381647

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:

> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:37:47 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 15:19:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > Get a life, dude!
> > 
> > Reality is - I didn't write what you wrote I wrote.
> > And real clocks are indicating t'=t...
> > And real observers see immobile trees and buildings...
> > So what can a brainwashed relativistic moron do?
> > He can lie.
> 
> Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against Galilean
> relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an idiot religionist
> lunatic like Gary.

Wow, you really do carry a grudge, don't you!  And all because I popped
your delusional bubble.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same
as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source
… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres."
 -- Albert Einstein

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

#381648

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 6:37:47 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > W dniu czwartek, 14 kwietnia 2016 15:19:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > > >
> > > > Get a life, dude!
> > > 
> > > Reality is - I didn't write what you wrote I wrote.
> > > And real clocks are indicating t'=t...
> > > And real observers see immobile trees and buildings...
> > > So what can a brainwashed relativistic moron do?
> > > He can lie.
> > 
> > Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against Galilean
> > relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an idiot religionist
> > lunatic like Gary.
> 
>  And all because I popped
> your delusional bubble.
> 
>

So much for not bearing false witness. Yeah I already know that you're just a lunatic religionist idiot.

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

#381666

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against Galilean
> > > relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an idiot religionist
> > > lunatic like Gary.
> > 
> >  And all because I popped your delusional bubble.
>
> So much for not bearing false witness.\

Why do you have such a delusional hangup about "bearing false witness"?
You obviously don't even know what that phrase means.

> Yeah I already know that you're just a lunatic religionist idiot.

Nobody cares what you "know" because in some respects you're just like
the delusional and dishonest relativity-deniers.  You are a fanatical
atheist.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same
as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source
... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
 -- Albert Einstein

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

#381669

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 10:52:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against Galilean
> > > > relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an idiot religionist
> > > > lunatic like Gary.
> > > 
> > >  And all because I popped your delusional bubble.
> >
> > So much for not bearing false witness.\
> 
> Why do you have such a delusional hangup about "bearing false witness"?
> You obviously don't even know what that phrase means.

So much for not bearing false witness. Yeah I already know you're a loony tunes immoral religionist idiot. Of course these pretty much go hand in hand. You can't be a religionist without the most vile form of dishonesty there is, dishonesty with yourself. I mean take this thread for example. You lied. I called you out on it and you lied some more. Its almost like you hate honesty. You're scum, and only you can change that.

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

#381703

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:03:23 PM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 10:52:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against
> > > > > Galilean relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an
> > > > > idiot religionist lunatic like Gary.
> > > > 
> > > >  And all because I popped your delusional bubble.
> > >
> > > So much for not bearing false witness.\
> > 
> > Why do you have such a delusional hangup about "bearing false witness"?
> > You obviously don't even know what that phrase means.
> 
> So much for not bearing false witness.

Oh, look, Waite pulls the old moldy cud out and chews it again.  Moo-oo-oo!

[Really outrageous, intolerant, delusional loony rant deleted for sanitary
purposes]

Get yourself checked into the nearest asylum for the extremely angry.  You
are a danger to society.

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

#381712

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 4:38:35 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 12:03:23 PM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 10:52:32 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:52:28 AM UTC-6, David Waite wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes we already know your such a moron that you'll argue against
> > > > > > Galilean relativity too. You're an idiot even compared to an
> > > > > > idiot religionist lunatic like Gary.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  And all because I popped your delusional bubble.
> > > >
> > > > So much for not bearing false witness.\
> > > 
> > > Why do you have such a delusional hangup about "bearing false witness"?
> > > You obviously don't even know what that phrase means.
> > 
> > So much for not bearing false witness.
> 
> Oh, look, Waite pulls the old moldy cud out and chews it again.  Moo-oo-oo!
> 
> [Really outrageous, intolerant, delusional loony rant deleted for sanitary
> purposes]
> 
> Get yourself checked into the nearest asylum for the extremely angry.  You
> are a danger to society.

See there you go bearing false witness some more. You're dishonest scum and as I said, only you can change that.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web