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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426291 > unrolled thread

Who Killed Physics?

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

Contents

  Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 07:19 -0700
    Re: Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 10:04 -0700
    Re: Who Killed Physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-27 10:25 -0700
    Re: Who Killed Physics? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 12:06 -0700
    Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 12:00 -0700
      Re: Who Killed Physics? Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 20:44 +0000
      Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 14:09 -0700
        Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 15:58 -0700
          Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 23:37 -0700
            Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:09 -0700
              Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 00:00 -0700
                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 11:44 -0700
                  Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 13:26 -0700
                    Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 13:42 -0700
                      Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 14:22 -0700
                        Re: Who Killed Physics? Otten Schneijders <jii@pouartj.op> - 2017-08-04 21:29 +0000
                        Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 14:40 -0700
                          Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-04 14:45 -0700
                            Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 15:17 -0700
                              Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-05 09:09 -0700
                                Re: Who Killed Physics? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-05 09:17 -0700
                                  Re: Who Killed Physics? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-05 12:10 -0700
                                Re: Who Killed Physics? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 12:44 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#426291 — Who Killed Physics?

"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk 

Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one, and they've been looking at one since January 2001: 

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."  http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be re,versed. I am not. [...] Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either."  https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172684821.html 

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900 

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/ 

"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html 

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."  https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563 

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE 

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."  https://edge.org/response-detail/25477 

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html 

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."  http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review 

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."  https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe-ebook/dp/B00AEGQPFE 

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."  http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/ 

Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views."  http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories 

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."
 http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html 

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended."  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."  http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266 

"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" 
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2 

"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."  http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#426316

The following quotations suggest that Einstein killed physics by advancing his false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." 
 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf 

"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." 
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/

Here is an analogous suggestion from an unperson:

http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/2013/02/the-farce-of-physics-2/ 
 Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! [...] The speed of light is c+v." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one should not judge him too severely for stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.] 

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/SpecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf 
 Bryan G. Wallace, Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 361-367. ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

In Einstein's schizophrenic world critics automatically become unpersons - they don't exist and have never existed: 

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.4.html 
 "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

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

#426321

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> "Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk
> 
> Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one, and they've been looking at one since January 2001:
> 
> Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishin
> 
> 
> 
> New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."  http://www.newscien
> 
> "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."
> 
> "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."
> 
> Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."  https://www
> 
> Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
> 
> What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
> 
> "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's rela
> 
> "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
> 
> "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."
> 
> Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."
> 
> Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space fo
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."
>  http://www.nature.com.proxy.readcube.com/nphys/journal/v13/n4/full/nphys4079.html
> 
> Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the
> 
> Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different."  htt
> 
> 
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
> 
> "Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."
> 
> Pentcho Valev



albert einstein killed physics when he built the atomic bomb. he went
from physics to engineering...

his partner in crime Leo Zilard dropped out of physics and went into
biology.


a lot of people drop out of physics because it doesn't lead to...
anywhere.

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

#426341

In 1954 Einstein became honest and suggested that, by basing his theory on the continuous field concept, he had killed physics: 

https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-John-Stachel/dp/0817641432 
 John Stachel, Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', p. 151: Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." 

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false constancy of the speed of light which was a tenet of the ether field theory: 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf 
 "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ 
 "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768 
 Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
 Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." 

Pentcho Valev

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

#426956

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:19:45 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk 
> 
> Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one, and they've been looking at one since January 2001:

No, it's simply the standard process of science evolving. Same thing since Newton.

You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
that it has a problem of some imagined sort.

You are wasting your time.

--
Jan

--
Jan

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

#426962

Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 JanPB napsal(a):

> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 7:19:45 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> "Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at
>> one right now."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhVLHu8HRk
>> 
>> Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one, and they've been
>> looking at one since January 2001:
> 
> No, it's simply the standard process of science evolving. Same thing
> since Newton.

As not subjected to a mandatory vaccination program, Einstein was capable
to come up with Relativity. Since then "dead science" probably because of
that.

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

#426968

W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> that it has a problem of some imagined sort.

Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.

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

#426986

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> 
> > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> 
> Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.

Not even wrong. Total nonsense.

--
Jan

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

#427001

W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > 
> > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > 
> > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> 
> Not even wrong. Total nonsense.

Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?

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

#427137

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > 
> > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > 
> > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > 
> > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> 
> Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?

Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
of the discussion.

--
Jan

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

#427177

W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > 
> > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > 
> > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > 
> > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > 
> > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> 
> Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> of the discussion.

And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
So does Tom, Gary and others.

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

#427231

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > 
> > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > 
> > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > 
> > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > of the discussion.
> 
> And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> So does Tom, Gary and others.

The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.

That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.

--
Jan

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

#427238

W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > 
> > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > 
> > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > of the discussion.
> > 
> > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> 
> The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.

"Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
of your knowledge, poor idiot.

> That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.

Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.

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

#427245

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > > 
> > > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > > of the discussion.
> > > 
> > > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> > 
> > The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.
> 
> "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
> of your knowledge, poor idiot.

To you everyone is an "idiot". We all know that and good luck.

> > That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.
> 
> Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.

No, the record of this NG speaks for itself. Of course you can pretend
there is some sort of "equivalence" between us. Whatever makes you happy.
But if you make a mistake, I'll likely point it out.

--
Jan

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

#427248

W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 22:42:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > > > of the discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > > > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> > > 
> > > The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.
> > 
> > "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
> > of your knowledge, poor idiot.
> 
> To you everyone is an "idiot".

No, poor idiot. It's only you and your fellow idiots.

 
> > > That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.
> > 
> > Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.
> 
> No, the record of this NG speaks for itself. Of course you can pretend
> there is some sort of "equivalence" between us. Whatever makes you happy.
> But if you make a mistake, I'll likely point it out.

By screaming "syntax schmyntax" or alike, of course.

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

#427250

mlwozniak wrote:

>> > "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof of your
>> > knowledge, poor idiot.
>> 
>> To you everyone is an "idiot".
> 
> No, poor idiot. It's only you and your fellow idiots.

You don't know what it takes to do stuff in industry, Poutnik. This is not 
a shame. You might be tuff in completely other domains, like cooking, 
singing and so on.

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

#427253

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 2:23:02 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 22:42:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > > > > of the discussion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > > > > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> > > > 
> > > > The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.
> > > 
> > > "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
> > > of your knowledge, poor idiot.
> > 
> > To you everyone is an "idiot".
> 
> No, poor idiot. It's only you and your fellow idiots.
> 
>  
> > > > That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.
> > > 
> > > Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.
> > 
> > No, the record of this NG speaks for itself. Of course you can pretend
> > there is some sort of "equivalence" between us. Whatever makes you happy.
> > But if you make a mistake, I'll likely point it out.
> 
> By screaming "syntax schmyntax" or alike, of course.

In any way I please. Normally I try to simply tell things how they are.

--
Jan

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

#427254

W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 23:40:44 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 2:23:02 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 22:42:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > > > > > of the discussion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > > > > > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.
> > > > 
> > > > "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
> > > > of your knowledge, poor idiot.
> > > 
> > > To you everyone is an "idiot".
> > 
> > No, poor idiot. It's only you and your fellow idiots.
> > 
> >  
> > > > > That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.
> > > > 
> > > > Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.
> > > 
> > > No, the record of this NG speaks for itself. Of course you can pretend
> > > there is some sort of "equivalence" between us. Whatever makes you happy.
> > > But if you make a mistake, I'll likely point it out.
> > 
> > By screaming "syntax schmyntax" or alike, of course.
> 
> In any way I please. Normally I try to simply tell things how they are.

How they are in your sick imagination, poor idiot.

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

#427257

On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 2:46:02 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 23:40:44 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 2:23:02 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 22:42:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 1:27:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 20:44:23 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 at 12:01:03 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > W dniu piątek, 4 sierpnia 2017 00:09:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 00:58:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 21:00:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > You are frantically trying to present everything as if it meant that
> > > > > > > > > > > > relativity was somehow different than every other theory in physics and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that it has a problem of some imagined sort.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, physicist were stupid since the beginning,
> > > > > > > > > > > true; but Einstein's screams "common sense is a collection
> > > > > > > > > > > of prejudices" raised their stupidity to brandly new level.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong. Total nonsense.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Tell me, poor idiot, what do you think "stupidity" is?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yelling at people calling them "poor idiot" while understanding nothing
> > > > > > > > of the discussion.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > And that's exactly what you do - you only ommit "poor".
> > > > > > > So does Tom, Gary and others.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The difference is: we know this stuff and you don't.
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Syntax schmyntax" screams are the mark and the proof
> > > > > of your knowledge, poor idiot.
> > > > 
> > > > To you everyone is an "idiot".
> > > 
> > > No, poor idiot. It's only you and your fellow idiots.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > > > That's what makes our word weigh differently than yours.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Imagination. As expected from a poor, brainwashed fanatic.
> > > > 
> > > > No, the record of this NG speaks for itself. Of course you can pretend
> > > > there is some sort of "equivalence" between us. Whatever makes you happy.
> > > > But if you make a mistake, I'll likely point it out.
> > > 
> > > By screaming "syntax schmyntax" or alike, of course.
> > 
> > In any way I please. Normally I try to simply tell things how they are.
> 
> How they are in your sick imagination, poor idiot.

My imagination is not sick. You simply know less about physics than I do.
What's the big deal. Calm down already.

--
Jan

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

#427336

W dniu sobota, 5 sierpnia 2017 00:17:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:


> > > In any way I please. Normally I try to simply tell things how they are.
> > 
> > How they are in your sick imagination, poor idiot.
> 
> My imagination is not sick. You simply know less about physics than I do.

I don't know that syntax schmyntax, for instance.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web