Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #458154 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nstefi@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 484 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einstein's Relativity Theory nstefi@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 08:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 16:18 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 09:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:23 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 10:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 01:59 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:49 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 07:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 11:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 20:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 14:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-21 09:22 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:13 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:49 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-22 21:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 10:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-24 21:58 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-25 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-25 21:03 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 10:07 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 03:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:32 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 13:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 09:06 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-05-18 11:48 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 22:47 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-22 21:45 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-22 19:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-24 21:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:40 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-05-25 04:52 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 16:55 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 09:29 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-18 14:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 07:03 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 13:33 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:50 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:44 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 19:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 07:09 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 23:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:46 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 12:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 23:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 02:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 00:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 07:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-23 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:55 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 10:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 05:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:57 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 08:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 09:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 09:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 12:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 12:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 20:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-25 21:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 14:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 20:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 12:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-27 18:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 16:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 22:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 16:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 21:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 12:54 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Vaughn Fleck <guah@nhnw.nc> - 2018-05-30 20:02 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 00:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 03:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 23:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-30 22:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-31 10:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 08:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-30 07:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:42 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 18:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-31 07:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 09:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 16:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 16:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 17:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:25 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 18:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 18:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-29 19:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 08:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 23:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 08:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 13:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 14:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 14:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-30 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 02:51 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-30 16:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 22:57 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 15:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 08:40 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:24 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 10:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:34 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 18:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-28 20:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 12:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 03:13 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 05:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 05:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 06:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 20:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-29 07:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 07:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:11 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-26 09:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-26 10:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 15:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 20:29 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:43 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-30 11:24 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-27 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 18:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 19:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 06:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:52 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:37 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 01:38 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-29 22:57 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 06:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-30 07:47 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-01 01:09 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 16:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-31 17:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-27 09:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-28 08:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 09:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-25 20:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:41 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-25 21:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 15:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 12:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 08:22 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 04:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 04:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-24 12:03 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 05:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 06:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 07:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 18:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-24 18:42 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-24 20:56 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 23:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 18:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-24 21:05 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 21:18 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 13:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:45 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 02:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Oslovné Ritmickeho <uiq@oichewo.th> - 2018-05-26 10:00 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-26 13:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-26 18:57 -0500
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 17:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 20:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 08:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 11:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 17:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 19:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 00:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 06:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:17 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 17:19 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 17:34 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 08:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-27 15:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:21 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:49 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:46 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 08:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 02:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-05-20 12:01 +1000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 06:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:24 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 21:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:24 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-22 13:54 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:28 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:31 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 09:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:28 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 11:40 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:27 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:04 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 06:43 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 13:47 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 14:05 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 08:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 16:59 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 10:16 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:20 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 13:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 20:58 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 22:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 00:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 13:10 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 06:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 17:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-24 12:32 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 21:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 22:06 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:28 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 02:07 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 19:30 +0100
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 02:06 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 12:37 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 03:52 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-23 04:15 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-05-23 13:18 +0200
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 09:30 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 10:08 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 18:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 13:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-20 17:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 09:39 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 10:17 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 05:10 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:21 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 05:46 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-22 05:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:24 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 09:56 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 10:14 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:22 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 17:36 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-22 11:00 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 11:11 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:25 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-22 13:02 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 18:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-20 17:27 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 01:23 +0000
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 13:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-05-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 04:37 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 06:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 08:55 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory DESMOND DAVID CLAY <desmondclaydavid677live@gmail.com> - 2018-05-20 08:18 -0700
Einstein's Relativity Theory "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-28 21:51 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:31 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 09:36 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 10:26 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Einstein's Relativity Theory Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-29 20:21 +0200
Page 20 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 25 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee1febec-9a5c-4978-8571-d111d2f3132f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458495 |
On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? > > > <snip> > > > > So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > > > > It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > > > > Thank you, > > Steven > > > > So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. Always remember: if you don't know something you have to believe it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven Nagy <nstefi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdeb749b-a259-4f56-8699-c510437ec458@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458513 |
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > > > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > > > > > > It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Steven > > > > > > > So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > > qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > > > Always remember: if you don't know something > you have to believe it. Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me, and contradicts with all I learned about physics before, which were all logical up to that point? I wouldn't do that. I would try to understand and learn how he reached to that conclusion, so it would make sense to me. I will try to read those books that were mentioned here when I have time, but until then this thread would be out of date, so that's why I just responded to comments based on what seems logical to me. I can follow a logical deduction, and I started reading his book, and that sentence about the event in A' and B' not being simultaneous, didn't sound logical to me. I don't have to read all the books to be able to understand a small portion of it. I can focus on a small fragment at a time and able to tell if it's logical or not. But even if he makes the smallest mistake and assumes something wrong, and later he will base new theories on top of that, like time dilation, then all those theories will be false. OK, I better sit down and start reading some of those books suggested. But the sources I found in internet so far only described his theories as they were all proven, but none of them tried to logically deduct it. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5c8eef2-c6f5-4311-9a53-e1fa4db2ecea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458525 |
On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > > > > Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove that the theory is right? > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > > > So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > > > qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > > > > > > Always remember: if you don't know something > > you have to believe it. > > Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me Particularly in this case. Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. They are scientists, we are engineers. They can have the power to prove us clocks must indicate their idiocies, because of Great Mystical Essence of the Core. And we have the power to continue making clocks indicating t'=t, just like serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 18:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdsegu$1237$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458534 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>> >>> >>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>> you have to believe it. >> >> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > > Particularly in this case. > Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. It’s not that hard to understand. Even a woodworker has no trouble understanding it. However, it does require reading. It also requires understanding some background concepts so jumping in the middle as a shortcut is not advisable. Some people are lazy. > They are scientists, we are engineers. They can > have the power to prove us clocks must indicate > their idiocies, because of Great Mystical Essence > of the Core. And we have the power to continue > making clocks indicating t'=t, just like serious > clocks always did. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <278db2f7-0c06-4270-b1f7-16c9e30586ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458567 |
On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the > >>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > >>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove > >>>>> that the theory is right? > >>>>> > >>>> <snip> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool > >>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that > >>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other > >>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another > >>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> Steven > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > >>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > >>> > >>> > >>> Always remember: if you don't know something > >>> you have to believe it. > >> > >> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > > > > Particularly in this case. > > Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. > > It’s not that hard to understand. It's not especially hard, but it's stilll waste of time. > Even a woodworker has no trouble It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what to say about your Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdulor$obn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458643 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>>>> you have to believe it. >>>> >>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me >>> >>> Particularly in this case. >>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. >> >> It’s not that hard to understand. > > It's not especially hard, And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. Your mantra is that if an idea runs counter to what you already believe (I.e. your common sense) then it is idiotic. And anything you deem idiotic you don’t bother to learn. Thus you have rendered yourself — by active choice — incapable of learning anything surprising. Well done. > but it's stilll waste of time. > >> Even a woodworker has no trouble > > It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such > idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what > to say about your Shit. Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. So are you. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <931c19f5-e620-4ff3-9860-bf96d29ce033@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458671 |
On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the > >>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > >>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove > >>>>>>> that the theory is right? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool > >>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that > >>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other > >>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another > >>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>> Steven > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > >>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something > >>>>> you have to believe it. > >>>> > >>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > >>> > >>> Particularly in this case. > >>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. > >> > >> It’s not that hard to understand. > > > > It's not especially hard, > > And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. It's you who doesn't, not me. > >> Even a woodworker has no trouble > > > > It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such > > idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what > > to say about your Shit. > > Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. > So are you. You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdutiv$17j3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458688 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>>>>>> you have to believe it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me >>>>> >>>>> Particularly in this case. >>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. >>>> >>>> It’s not that hard to understand. >>> >>> It's not especially hard, >> >> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. > > > It's you who doesn't, not me. Sorry dude but I’ve read. You haven’t. You at first claimed you did, but then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded, then you declined to answer, then you said the resources weren’t read because they weren’t worth reading. > > > >>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble >>> >>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such >>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what >>> to say about your Shit. >> >> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. >> So are you. > > You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for > your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're > stupid. Oh they do reject common sense. I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. What they have said is that data trumps common sense. You in the other hand have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for validation. And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence about science. Over and done. So foam and splutter away, vent your anger, stoke your ego. You are accomplishing nothing except making yourself feel better. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04eac39b-908d-45a4-896f-ccc670b24f22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458697 |
On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the > >>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > >>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove > >>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool > >>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that > >>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other > >>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another > >>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>> Steven > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > >>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something > >>>>>>> you have to believe it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > >>>>> > >>>>> Particularly in this case. > >>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. > >>>> > >>>> It’s not that hard to understand. > >>> > >>> It's not especially hard, > >> > >> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. > > > > > > It's you who doesn't, not me. > > Sorry dude but I’ve read. So what? > You haven’t. Yes, I have. >You at first claimed you did, but > then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not knowing even Pythagorean theorem. > >>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble > >>> > >>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such > >>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what > >>> to say about your Shit. > >> > >> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. > >> So are you. > > > > You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for > > your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're > > stupid. > > Oh they do reject common sense. Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common sense" is just another name of "stupidity". But they have rejected common sense, so they are too stupid to read dictionaries. > I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." > What they have said is that data trumps common sense. What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from morons rejecting common sense. Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping your moronic Shit. > You in the other hand > have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for > validation. > And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm a DATA engineer. I can make DATA confirming just anything. It's my job. Your job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about data. Really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 21:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pdvcgn$2ti$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458740 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>>>>>>>> you have to believe it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Particularly in this case. >>>>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s not that hard to understand. >>>>> >>>>> It's not especially hard, >>>> >>>> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. >>> >>> >>> It's you who doesn't, not me. >> >> Sorry dude but I’ve read. > > > So what? > > >> You haven’t. > > Yes, I have. > >> You at first claimed you did, but >> then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded > > And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not > knowing even Pythagorean theorem. Let’s just say the evasion and then your confession (already happened, you can look up your own posts for yourself) speak for themselves. > > >>>>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble >>>>> >>>>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such >>>>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what >>>>> to say about your Shit. >>>> >>>> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. >>>> So are you. >>> >>> You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for >>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're >>> stupid. >> >> Oh they do reject common sense. > > Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read > some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common > sense" is just another name of "stupidity". And I’m sure you can find lots of little reasons to defend common sense. There are also many books in science education across several scientific disciplines that go into how to overcome “common sense” preconceptions which seem reasonable but are also empirically wrong. That is where a good demonstration with the results plain for everyone to see are useful to shake one’s misplaced faith in their supposed common sense. The surprising result is the heart of science. Of course, you don’t buy into that. And so you refer to dictionaries to defend common sense as some paramount sensibility. People do the same thing quoting the Bible to defend backwards positions. > But they have rejected common sense, so they are > too stupid to read dictionaries. > > >> I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. > > I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for > your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." > > >> What they have said is that data trumps common sense. > > What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from > morons rejecting common sense. > > Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping > your moronic Shit. > > >> You in the other hand >> have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for >> validation. >> And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence > > Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm > a DATA engineer. > I can make DATA confirming just anything. Of course you can. You’re a programmer, not a scientist. You don’t understand the value of EXPERIMENTAL data that is core to science. What you can generate with code has nothing to do with that. > It's my job. Your > job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about > data. Really. > I’m not teaching you anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about with science, nor do you care. So nobody will try to teach you anything about it. They’ll just let you fume and obsess about it. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-21 21:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c396415b-4e98-4de4-8bd3-eac3e41d876a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458749 |
On Monday, 21 May 2018 23:08:43 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the > >>>>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > >>>>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove > >>>>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool > >>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that > >>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other > >>>>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another > >>>>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>> Steven > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > >>>>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something > >>>>>>>>> you have to believe it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Particularly in this case. > >>>>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It’s not that hard to understand. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not especially hard, > >>>> > >>>> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. > >>> > >>> > >>> It's you who doesn't, not me. > >> > >> Sorry dude but I’ve read. > > > > > > So what? > > > > > >> You haven’t. > > > > Yes, I have. > > > >> You at first claimed you did, but > >> then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded > > > > And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not > > knowing even Pythagorean theorem. > > Let’s just say the evasion and then your confession (already happened, you > can look up your own posts for yourself) speak for themselves. > > > > > > >>>>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such > >>>>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what > >>>>> to say about your Shit. > >>>> > >>>> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. > >>>> So are you. > >>> > >>> You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for > >>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're > >>> stupid. > >> > >> Oh they do reject common sense. > > > > Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read > > some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common > > sense" is just another name of "stupidity". > > And I’m sure you can find lots of little reasons to defend common sense. > There are also many books in science education across several scientific > disciplines that go into how to overcome “common sense” preconceptions > which seem reasonable but are also empirically wrong. That is where a good > demonstration with the results plain for everyone to see are useful to > shake one’s misplaced faith in their supposed common sense. The surprising > result is the heart of science. > > Of course, you don’t buy into that. And so you refer to dictionaries to > defend common sense as some paramount sensibility. People do the same thing > quoting the Bible to defend backwards positions. > > > But they have rejected common sense, so they are > > too stupid to read dictionaries. > > > > > >> I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. > > > > I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for > > your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." > > > > > >> What they have said is that data trumps common sense. > > > > What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from > > morons rejecting common sense. > > > > Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping > > your moronic Shit. > > > > > >> You in the other hand > >> have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for > >> validation. > >> And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence > > > > Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm > > a DATA engineer. > > I can make DATA confirming just anything. > > Of course you can. You’re a programmer, not a scientist. You don’t > understand the value of EXPERIMENTAL data that is core to science. :) You're WOODWORKER! You understand perfectly. What you > can generate with code has nothing to do with that. Poor fanatic idiot. > > It's my job. Your > > job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about > > data. Really. > > > > I’m not teaching you anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about > with science, nor do you care. You're not teaching me anything, nononononono! It's just that you know about science and I don't, so you say and I should listen, right, poor idiot? Odd, science is a DATA construct and it happens I'm a DATA engineer and you're just an arogant woodworker halfbrain. YOU don’t know what you’re talking about with science, nor do you care. So your moronic gurus rejecting common sense do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 13:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b03fdea$0$5204$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #458780 |
Silly Polish drunkyard, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: ... > I'm a DATA engineer ah ah ah ah! How much data in your bottle today, Mr Wozniak?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 04:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c2a8995-7134-4ed5-88f5-1cc035ee50ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458794 |
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 13:24:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Silly Polish drunkyard, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > ... > > I'm a DATA engineer > > ah ah ah ah! > > How much data in your bottle today, Mr Wozniak? See, poor idiot: according to your theory of science (assuming that the pathetic mumble of Popper can be counted as a theory) such an arguments would never appear. Your "theory of science" knows nothing about real science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 13:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b0404eb$0$12270$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #458795 |
Idiotic arrogant retard mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 13:24:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Silly Polish drunkyard, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> ... >>> I'm a DATA engineer >> >> ah ah ah ah! >> >> How much data in your bottle today, Mr Wozniak? > > See I do. You do not look good today, Mr Wozniak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8bb96bc5-9132-46d4-968c-625caab58994@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458796 |
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 13:54:21 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Idiotic arrogant retard mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > > On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 13:24:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: > >> Silly Polish drunkyard, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > >> ... > >>> I'm a DATA engineer > >> > >> ah ah ah ah! > >> > >> How much data in your bottle today, Mr Wozniak? > > > > See > > I do. You do not look good today, Mr Wozniak. Don't you like my new haircut, poor idiot?:(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe1533$q2g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458780 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Monday, 21 May 2018 23:08:43 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>>>>>>>>>> you have to believe it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Particularly in this case. >>>>>>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It’s not that hard to understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not especially hard, >>>>>> >>>>>> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's you who doesn't, not me. >>>> >>>> Sorry dude but I’ve read. >>> >>> >>> So what? >>> >>> >>>> You haven’t. >>> >>> Yes, I have. >>> >>>> You at first claimed you did, but >>>> then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded >>> >>> And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not >>> knowing even Pythagorean theorem. >> >> Let’s just say the evasion and then your confession (already happened, you >> can look up your own posts for yourself) speak for themselves. >> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such >>>>>>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what >>>>>>> to say about your Shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. >>>>>> So are you. >>>>> >>>>> You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for >>>>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're >>>>> stupid. >>>> >>>> Oh they do reject common sense. >>> >>> Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read >>> some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common >>> sense" is just another name of "stupidity". >> >> And I’m sure you can find lots of little reasons to defend common sense. >> There are also many books in science education across several scientific >> disciplines that go into how to overcome “common sense” preconceptions >> which seem reasonable but are also empirically wrong. That is where a good >> demonstration with the results plain for everyone to see are useful to >> shake one’s misplaced faith in their supposed common sense. The surprising >> result is the heart of science. >> >> Of course, you don’t buy into that. And so you refer to dictionaries to >> defend common sense as some paramount sensibility. People do the same thing >> quoting the Bible to defend backwards positions. >> >>> But they have rejected common sense, so they are >>> too stupid to read dictionaries. >>> >>> >>>> I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. >>> >>> I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for >>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." >>> >>> >>>> What they have said is that data trumps common sense. >>> >>> What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from >>> morons rejecting common sense. >>> >>> Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping >>> your moronic Shit. >>> >>> >>>> You in the other hand >>>> have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for >>>> validation. >>>> And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence >>> >>> Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm >>> a DATA engineer. >>> I can make DATA confirming just anything. >> >> Of course you can. You’re a programmer, not a scientist. You don’t >> understand the value of EXPERIMENTAL data that is core to science. > > :) > You're WOODWORKER! You understand perfectly. > > > What you >> can generate with code has nothing to do with that. > > Poor fanatic idiot. > >>> It's my job. Your >>> job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about >>> data. Really. >>> >> >> I’m not teaching you anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about >> with science, nor do you care. > > You're not teaching me anything, nononononono! > It's just that you know about science and I don't, > so you say and I should listen, right, poor idiot? > > Odd, science is a DATA construct and it happens > I'm a DATA engineer and you're just an arogant > woodworker halfbrain. YOU don’t know what you’re > talking about with science, nor do you care. > So your moronic gurus rejecting common sense do. > > Wozniak, it’s adorable that you firmly believe that a second tier programmer for a Polish shipping company who is unread in physics nevertheless knows physics better than physicists, because of the words “data” and “model” and “common sense”. And then you go calling other people “arogant”. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 07:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdb56298-7ec5-406a-a92d-39365afe3ea1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458805 |
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 15:14:14 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > > On Monday, 21 May 2018 23:08:43 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other > >>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another > >>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel > >>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something > >>>>>>>>>>> you have to believe it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Particularly in this case. > >>>>>>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It’s not that hard to understand. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's not especially hard, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> It's you who doesn't, not me. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry dude but I’ve read. > >>> > >>> > >>> So what? > >>> > >>> > >>>> You haven’t. > >>> > >>> Yes, I have. > >>> > >>>> You at first claimed you did, but > >>>> then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded > >>> > >>> And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not > >>> knowing even Pythagorean theorem. > >> > >> Let’s just say the evasion and then your confession (already happened, you > >> can look up your own posts for yourself) speak for themselves. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such > >>>>>>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what > >>>>>>> to say about your Shit. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. > >>>>>> So are you. > >>>>> > >>>>> You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for > >>>>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're > >>>>> stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Oh they do reject common sense. > >>> > >>> Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read > >>> some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common > >>> sense" is just another name of "stupidity". > >> > >> And I’m sure you can find lots of little reasons to defend common sense. > >> There are also many books in science education across several scientific > >> disciplines that go into how to overcome “common sense” preconceptions > >> which seem reasonable but are also empirically wrong. That is where a good > >> demonstration with the results plain for everyone to see are useful to > >> shake one’s misplaced faith in their supposed common sense. The surprising > >> result is the heart of science. > >> > >> Of course, you don’t buy into that. And so you refer to dictionaries to > >> defend common sense as some paramount sensibility. People do the same thing > >> quoting the Bible to defend backwards positions. > >> > >>> But they have rejected common sense, so they are > >>> too stupid to read dictionaries. > >>> > >>> > >>>> I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. > >>> > >>> I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for > >>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." > >>> > >>> > >>>> What they have said is that data trumps common sense. > >>> > >>> What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from > >>> morons rejecting common sense. > >>> > >>> Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping > >>> your moronic Shit. > >>> > >>> > >>>> You in the other hand > >>>> have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for > >>>> validation. > >>>> And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence > >>> > >>> Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm > >>> a DATA engineer. > >>> I can make DATA confirming just anything. > >> > >> Of course you can. You’re a programmer, not a scientist. You don’t > >> understand the value of EXPERIMENTAL data that is core to science. > > > > :) > > You're WOODWORKER! You understand perfectly. > > > > > > What you > >> can generate with code has nothing to do with that. > > > > Poor fanatic idiot. > > > >>> It's my job. Your > >>> job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about > >>> data. Really. > >>> > >> > >> I’m not teaching you anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about > >> with science, nor do you care. > > > > You're not teaching me anything, nononononono! > > It's just that you know about science and I don't, > > so you say and I should listen, right, poor idiot? > > > > Odd, science is a DATA construct and it happens > > I'm a DATA engineer and you're just an arogant > > woodworker halfbrain. YOU don’t know what you’re > > talking about with science, nor do you care. > > So your moronic gurus rejecting common sense do. > > > > > > Wozniak, it’s adorable that you firmly believe that a second tier > programmer for a Polish shipping company who is unread in physics > nevertheless knows physics better than physicists, because of the words > “data” and “model” and “common sense”. Bodkin, it's adorable that you think your moronic gurus know just everything because they know just everything, even if it's completely out of their domain. It's not adorable, however, that you're trying to teach a data engineer about how data works. So, yes, I go calling you "arrogant", poor, arogant halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe1d3k$19g2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458814 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 15:14:14 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 23:08:43 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 18:53:55 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, 21 May 2018 16:40:31 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 20:24:35 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 16:50:55 UTC+2, Steven Nagy wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 9:02:30 AM UTC-4, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 20 May 2018 04:01:05 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 1:41 AM, nstefi@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to understand general relativity better, and follow the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic how Einstein reached to the conclusion of General Theory of Relativity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you direct me to some good resources that can explain and prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the theory is right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it seems like his argument has flaws. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the theory of general relativity is just a tool >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of abstraction from reality that helps to explain certain things that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Newton’s theory couldn’t, but maybe it raises a lot of other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, and maybe it’s a way of looking at the world from another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, but maybe we see something completely else than the reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you admit that your understanding has limits, but still feel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualified to suggest that the theory is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Always remember: if you don't know something >>>>>>>>>>>>> you have to believe it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Haha. Even if something completely doesn't make sense to me >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Particularly in this case. >>>>>>>>>>> Don't even trouble trying to understand this shit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It’s not that hard to understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not especially hard, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And yet you don’t understand it, because you haven’t tried. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's you who doesn't, not me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry dude but I’ve read. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So what? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You haven’t. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I have. >>>>> >>>>>> You at first claimed you did, but >>>>>> then when asked for specific resources you’ve read, you first evaded >>>>> >>>>> And why should I confess to an idiot woodworker not >>>>> knowing even Pythagorean theorem. >>>> >>>> Let’s just say the evasion and then your confession (already happened, you >>>> can look up your own posts for yourself) speak for themselves. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even a woodworker has no trouble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not especially hard, but it's still not for such >>>>>>>>> idiots. You don't understand Pythagorean theorem, what >>>>>>>>> to say about your Shit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto maintains it is impossible for him to be wrong. But he’s insane. >>>>>>>> So are you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You, on the other hand, maintains it's impossible for >>>>>>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense. But you're >>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh they do reject common sense. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, they do. If they didn't they could read >>>>> some dictionaries to learn that "lack of common >>>>> sense" is just another name of "stupidity". >>>> >>>> And I’m sure you can find lots of little reasons to defend common sense. >>>> There are also many books in science education across several scientific >>>> disciplines that go into how to overcome “common sense” preconceptions >>>> which seem reasonable but are also empirically wrong. That is where a good >>>> demonstration with the results plain for everyone to see are useful to >>>> shake one’s misplaced faith in their supposed common sense. The surprising >>>> result is the heart of science. >>>> >>>> Of course, you don’t buy into that. And so you refer to dictionaries to >>>> defend common sense as some paramount sensibility. People do the same thing >>>> quoting the Bible to defend backwards positions. >>>> >>>>> But they have rejected common sense, so they are >>>>> too stupid to read dictionaries. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I’ve not denied that, you drunken liar. >>>>> >>>>> I meant "it's impossible [to be wrong] for >>>>> your moronic gurus rejecting common sense." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> What they have said is that data trumps common sense. >>>>> >>>>> What a pity they imagined this data. As expected from >>>>> morons rejecting common sense. >>>>> >>>>> Real data from real clocks of real GPS is: t'=t, trumping >>>>> your moronic Shit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You in the other hand >>>>>> have claimed that your idea of science doesn’t count on data for >>>>>> validation. >>>>>> And with that, you have firmly established your incompetence >>>>> >>>>> Odd, poor, incompetent idiot, you're a woodworker, whle I'm >>>>> a DATA engineer. >>>>> I can make DATA confirming just anything. >>>> >>>> Of course you can. You’re a programmer, not a scientist. You don’t >>>> understand the value of EXPERIMENTAL data that is core to science. >>> >>> :) >>> You're WOODWORKER! You understand perfectly. >>> >>> >>> What you >>>> can generate with code has nothing to do with that. >>> >>> Poor fanatic idiot. >>> >>>>> It's my job. Your >>>>> job is making toys and tables. Don't teach me competency about >>>>> data. Really. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I’m not teaching you anything. You don’t know what you’re talking about >>>> with science, nor do you care. >>> >>> You're not teaching me anything, nononononono! >>> It's just that you know about science and I don't, >>> so you say and I should listen, right, poor idiot? >>> >>> Odd, science is a DATA construct and it happens >>> I'm a DATA engineer and you're just an arogant >>> woodworker halfbrain. YOU don’t know what you’re >>> talking about with science, nor do you care. >>> So your moronic gurus rejecting common sense do. >>> >>> >> >> Wozniak, it’s adorable that you firmly believe that a second tier >> programmer for a Polish shipping company who is unread in physics >> nevertheless knows physics better than physicists, because of the words >> “data” and “model” and “common sense”. > > > Bodkin, it's adorable that you think your moronic gurus > know just everything because they know just everything, > even if it's completely out of their domain. Woah. Which physicist has ever said he knows everything? Physicists know physics. You are not a physicist but claim to understand physics better than physicists. If anything you are the one guiltiest of what you accuse others for. > It's not adorable, however, that you're trying to teach > a data engineer about how data works. So, yes, I go calling > you "arrogant", poor, arogant halfbrain. Experimental physics data. You are a programmer, not a physicist. You do not know about experimental physics data. You using data in programming does not make you an expert in all kinds of data. Don’t be an arrogant blow hard, ok? > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 09:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b07edf4-8ad2-40c1-a1e5-af91ce635ecf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #458824 |
On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 17:31:04 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Bodkin, it's adorable that you think your moronic gurus > > know just everything because they know just everything, > > even if it's completely out of their domain. > > Woah. Which physicist has ever said he knows everything? Physicists know > physics. And mathematics. And models. An observers. And data. And what science is ad how it works. And... > You are not a physicist but claim to understand physics better Physicist, poor idiot, know physics. They know muons. Gravity. Light. Electromagnetism. This kind of stuff. Their precious physics doesn't know what it is and how it works. This is completely out of its domain. It's in MY domain. > > It's not adorable, however, that you're trying to teach > > a data engineer about how data works. So, yes, I go calling > > you "arrogant", poor, arogant halfbrain. > > Experimental physics data. Just a special case of data in general. You're a pathetic, arogant woodworker halfbrain. Not a data engineer. You don't know about data engineering. You don't know what it does and how. You don't know of any kind of data. You know about wood. So, continue to be an arogant blow hard. That's what is expected from a fanatic idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-22 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pe1jvh$1mbp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #458844 |
<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 May 2018 17:31:04 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Bodkin, it's adorable that you think your moronic gurus >>> know just everything because they know just everything, >>> even if it's completely out of their domain. >> >> Woah. Which physicist has ever said he knows everything? Physicists know >> physics. > > And mathematics. As it applies to physics. > And models. Physics models, scientific models, not other kinds of models. Not economics models, not movie-making models, not traffic models. > An observers. As that jargon term applies in the context of physics. Just as “human” has a specialized meaning in law that is different than in biology. > And data. Yes, experimental physics data. > And > what science is ad how it works. Most definitely. Scientists completely own the meaning of science and how it works. Nobody else does. Just as you would not expect dentists or plumbers to have a say in what computer science is or how it works. > And... > > >> You are not a physicist but claim to understand physics better > > Physicist, poor idiot, know physics. They know muons. Gravity. > Light. Electromagnetism. This kind of stuff. Their precious > physics doesn't know what it is and how it works. This is > completely out of its domain. It's in MY domain. No sir. You are not in a position to claim that. Don’t be an arrogant ass. > >>> It's not adorable, however, that you're trying to teach >>> a data engineer about how data works. So, yes, I go calling >>> you "arrogant", poor, arogant halfbrain. >> >> Experimental physics data. > > Just a special case of data in general. Sorry, but your domain is not all forms of data. Don’t be an arrogant ass. > You're a pathetic, > arogant woodworker halfbrain. Not a data engineer. You > don't know about data engineering. You don't know what it > does and how. You don't know of any kind of data. You know > about wood. I know about what I’ve read. Which is more than what I do for a living. I don’t know about you, but I read more than what I do for a living. Have you read Lenin by the way? Or do you only read about programming? > So, continue to be an arogant blow hard. That's > what is expected from a fanatic idiot. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 25 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 25 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web