Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 04:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-31 07:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-03-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 14:54 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-04-03 15:13 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 01:03 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 20:57 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 22:14 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 10:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 11:24 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 23:44 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 02:05 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 02:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 02:58 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 04:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 04:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 04:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 05:14 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 05:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 06:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-05 20:54 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 12:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 23:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 06:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-06 07:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 09:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-06 09:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 11:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 12:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 14:33 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-09 10:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 15:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-10 12:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-03 23:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-04 20:22 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-03-29 06:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-29 11:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 11:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 21:50 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 22:09 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 13:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 22:43 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 14:24 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:58 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-29 23:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 00:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 00:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 01:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 02:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:35 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:21 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:43 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 04:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-03-30 04:43 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 05:31 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 06:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:21 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:48 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:39 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:34 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:04 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 05:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:53 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:42 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 13:50 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-31 23:03 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 15:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 23:09 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 00:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-01 00:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 14:53 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 17:55 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:44 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 21:02 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 01:10 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 10:38 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-04 11:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 23:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 00:27 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 00:52 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 15:37 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 09:05 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 14:42 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:26 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-29 23:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-30 10:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 10:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-31 07:20 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b90d5f84-23c4-4abd-aca7-e57504cce77b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380436 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:50:54 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz²
> > > > where α is a function of t'.
> >
> > > This is a light sphere equation only
> >
>
> > No its not crackpot. Its
> > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz²
> > under the transformation
> > ct=∫γdct'+γβx'
> > x=γx'+∫γβdct'
> > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'.
> > and
> > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c
> As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest
> and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru,
> because he found it's no fun anymore.
I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer express the spacetime line element as
ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz²
Al’s inertial frame coordinates will be t,x,y,z and that will be the expression for the line element according to his coordinates.
Now consider another observer Bert, who may even be accelerated.
Local to him using locally rectilinear coordinates he will find that the line element reduces to
ds²→ dct’²-dx’²-dy’²-dz’²
He doesn’t move with respect to himself so using this as a description of his own path through spacetime the spatial differentials vanish and the path describes his wristwatch time, proper time.
ds²→ dcτ²
Since ds² is an invariant we see that the path of Bert as described by Al’s inertial frame coordinates is
dct²-dx²-dy²-dz²= dcτ²
Algebra
dct²{1-[(dx/dct)²+(dy/dct)²+(dz/dct)²]}= dcτ²
dt²{1-[(dx/dct)²+(dy/dct)²+(dz/dct)²]}= dτ²
dt²[1-(v²/c²)]= dτ²
dt²= dτ²/[1-(v²/c²)]
dt= dτ/sqrt[1-(v²/c²)]
So this time dilation equation is how the inertial frame observer Al, observes the other observer Bert to be time dilated, no matter whether Bert is accelerated or not.
Now Julio is making the crackpot assertion that even when accelerated Bert would get the result finding Al time dilated. Relativity says he doesn’t and relativity yields no contradiction, so claiming otherwise is a strawman fallacy. To find how things go according to the accelerated spacetime standards of Bert, you must first assign Bert accelerated coordinates appropriate to his accelerated state. So lets say Bert accelerates along the x-axis. We’ll assign him accelerated coordinate of t’ and x’ according to
ct=∫γdct'+γβx'
x=γx'+∫γβdct'
where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t’. Now he accelerates with arbitrary time dependence but two things can clearly be seen before we even go any further. First of all, these reduce to Lorentz transformation only when he is not accelerating, and only then will he observe Al to be time dilated, however, second of all, since he is always at x’=0, he has to agree with Al that in any round trip when the watches are compared side be side that it will be his own watch that will have recorded less time in accordance with special relativistic time dilation of
Δct=∫γdct'
as that comes directly from the first transformation equation for the coordinates assigned him.
Now under this transformation the line element expressed in accelerated Bert’s coordinates is
ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz²
α=γ²(dβ/dt')c
From a general relativity perspective, what Bert describes as going on is he describes inertial Al’s motion as a geodesic in what he perceives as a gravitational acceleration field which yields a gravitational red or blue shift or gravitational time dilation effect on clocks far along the x’ direction corresponding to the (1+αx'/c²)² element of the metric. According to the accelerated spacetime standards appropriate for Bert, he finds that when Al is far away, and he accelerates toward Al, Al’s watch runs fast corresponding to a blue shift. In the end both observers agree that after a round trip, Burt aged less and by how much.
Now Julio just introduces another accelerated frame. It doesn’t matter. You still have to treat that frame as accelerated, the same way we had to treat Bert’s frame as accelerated and assigned him appropriate accelerated coordinates. The kind of acceleration that Bert experiences is absolute. It is not relative and is not treated as relative in relativity. Saying otherwise is a strawman fallacy. You can tell who accelerates and in the end all observers can agree on that. If the spacetime you observe is
ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz²
then you’re not accelerating.
If the spacetime you observe is something like
ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz²
then you absolutely ARE accelerating.
The spacetime length of the acceleration 4-vector on you in that case is nonzero, and that is an invariant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 22:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndepdk$kk9$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380438 |
Użytkownik "David Waite" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:b90d5f84-23c4-4abd-aca7-e57504cce77b@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:50:54 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > under the transformation > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > and > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > because he found it's no fun anymore. |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer express the spacetime line element as Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in Galileo's time. Now they are really, really pathetic. You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <618a6e53-66eb-4a5c-8f06-0ff347a1f20c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380439 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > under the transformation > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > and > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > express the spacetime line element as > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > Galileo's time. > Now they are really, really pathetic. > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac51be16-d690-4d08-8ac6-a11c39e81b22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380441 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > under the transformation > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > and > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > Galileo's time. > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. What it is exactly I cannot tell without meeting him in person (which I'm not interested in). My _guess_ is autism as despite being an adult, his emotional responses are childlike which is typical for that sort of thing. He also seems unable to pick anything between the lines (you have to write everything very precisely for him, like for Mr. Spock) which likewise typical. As long as he is not running for office it's no skin off my nose :-) -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50b633c5-f971-4522-9ffb-4c03ade40923@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380448 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > and > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > Galileo's time. > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. Have you already consulted your doctor about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <17e042aa-3263-4405-ba42-cc50be1da1da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380457 |
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > and > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > Have you already consulted your doctor > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. Don't take it too hard, I'm sure there are things you know that I don't. Physics just happens not to be one of them, hence saying I could be your guru in that domain is just a rather pedestrian statement of fact. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 00:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31b4293a-f619-46c9-aac9-8a252227f79b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380459 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, poor want-to-be-guru. > I'm sure there are things you know that I don't. That's right. But I'm not yelling "I'm a GURU!!!" somehow. > Physics just happens not to be one of them, hence saying I could > be your guru in that domain is just a rather pedestrian statement of fact. As I've said, your knowledge of 2-dimensional ants from your imagination doesn't impress me. Samely, your knowledge of imagined twins with imagined clocks and imagined metric. Your mumble has NOTHING in common with reality. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 01:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <763b5c95-b0e0-4507-b437-6068b8625dd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380460 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 02:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dc9480e9-0c51-49ed-984d-8a8370df3255@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380462 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected from reality" to you. They are not. You are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93e67112-cba2-419e-8d43-b4c346bef194@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380466 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23265a60-6544-4bf7-9fd5-935c107c1b61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380468 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <61521de6-59fe-4101-8172-dbe28d0b96c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380472 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe > > > Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot. Still not a rational argument against relativity as such I am still left to the conclusion that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f24cf154-282f-41e1-88ae-c5dfe243d60f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380473 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > > > > > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe > > > > > > Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot. > > Still not a rational argument against relativity as such I am still left to the conclusion that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? None of these. I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational morons disconnected from reality telling me about irrationality and disconnection from reality. Irrational? Well, yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16662490-2e57-4dd2-93ff-d64216f0b832@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380475 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > > > > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > > > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > > > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe > > > > > > > > > Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot. > > > > Still not a rational argument against relativity as such I am still left to the conclusion that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? > > None of these. > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > Irrational? Well, yes. Still not a rational argument against it as such, still finding your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 03:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2282560c-be97-4d13-bd34-2b79360b45c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380476 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > > > > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > > > > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot. > > > > > > Still not a rational argument against relativity as such I am still left to the conclusion that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? > > > > None of these. > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > Still not a rational argument against it as such, still finding your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, of course. So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational morons disconnected from reality telling me about irrationality and disconnection from reality. Irrational? Well, yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 04:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d9c8f24-cd0d-4f4a-8334-41ed87c29e28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380477 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:53:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=(1+αx'/c²)²dct'²-dx'²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where α is a function of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a light sphere equation only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No its not crackpot. Its > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ds²=dct²-dx²-dy²-dz² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under the transformation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ct=∫γdct'+γβx' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > x=γx'+∫γβdct' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where γ and β are to be expressed as functions of t'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > α=γ²(dβ/dt')c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we're talking about mathematics, let's remind that the oldest > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and one of most trustful pieces of it was rejected by Great Guru, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because he found it's no fun anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |I know this is over your crackpot head, but I’ll suppose I’ll spell it out > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. Lets say Al is an unaccelerated observer in the flat spacetime of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > special relativity. Coordinates appropriate for an inertial frame observer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > express the spacetime line element as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Too bad that relativistic tales of observers didn't match realiity even in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Galileo's time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now they are really, really pathetic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You'd better write a nice story of dragons. Nobody could ever check it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Learn to use the right reply button moron, and, that's not a rational argument. As such I have to admit that your anti-relativity crankdom must be motivated by something irrational like jealousy or racism. So which is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's likely a psychological problem affecting the ego. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you already consulted your doctor > > > > > > > > > > > about your little "I'm a GURU!" problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no need to: I know this stuff and you don't. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't take it too hard, but your "immutable > > > > > > > > > mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really should see a shrink about your disconnect from reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a fanatic, brainwashed moron you're taking for reality > > > > > > > your Shit. That's why sane people look as "disconnected > > > > > > > from reality" to you. They are not. You are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's not a rational argument and as such I am left to believe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel free to believe whatever you wish, poor idiot. > > > > > > > > Still not a rational argument against relativity as such I am still left to the conclusion that your anti-relativity crankdom is based on something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? > > > > > > None of these. > > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > > > Still not a rational argument against it as such, still finding your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, so which is it? > > As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, > of course. > So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > Irrational? Well, yes. Repeating something that isn't a rational argument against relativity doesn't magically make it a rational argument so I still am left to conclude your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, So which is it, as I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 04:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f9ed9d4-6738-4a2a-876f-d325d8b958bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380480 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+1, David Waite wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:53:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: <snip> > > As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, > > of course. > > So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > Repeating something that isn't a rational argument against relativity doesn't magically make it a rational argument so I still am left to conclude your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, So which is it, as I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here. Will you two bloody morons stop spamming this thread ?? Thank you in advance, Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 05:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0dd7b8f4-1570-49c8-9c78-691ff1231f54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380481 |
W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 13:43:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Julio Di Egidio napisał: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+1, David Waite wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:53:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > <snip> > > > As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, > > > of course. > > > So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. > > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > > > Repeating something that isn't a rational argument against relativity doesn't magically make it a rational argument so I still am left to conclude your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, So which is it, as I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here. > > Will you two bloody morons stop spamming this thread ?? > > Thank you in advance, No thanks is needed, as I'm not going to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9ea3b39-4025-47f4-ae97-30e91704e856@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380481 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 4:43:35 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+1, David Waite wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:53:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > <snip> > > > As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, > > > of course. > > > So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. > > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > > > Repeating something that isn't a rational argument against relativity doesn't magically make it a rational argument so I still am left to conclude your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, So which is it, as I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here. > > Will you two bloody morons stop spamming this thread ?? > > Thank you in advance, > > Julio You're the moron spamming the group with long sense debunked crankdom. Lets face it, I just utterly invalidated your position just as other have long ago and yet here you are perpetuating the thread as if you weren't proven wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-30 12:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4346fcc2-0b4a-4236-9df7-8bfba8d6e9f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380481 |
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 4:43:35 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:34:42 PM UTC+1, David Waite wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:53:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:43:32 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:22:01 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 12:11:29 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 3:00:23 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 11:35:14 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 2:06:29 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 10:45:39 UTC+2 użytkownik David Waite napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 12:51:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 09:07:30 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 00:58:47 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 2:24:56 PM UTC-7, David Waite wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 1:43:35 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > <snip> > > > As I'm talking to an idiot, one answer can't be enough, > > > of course. > > > So, let's repeat: it's neither jealousy, nor racism. > > > I simply don't like fanatic, brainwashed, irrational > > > morons disconnected from reality telling me about > > > irrationality and disconnection from reality. > > > Irrational? Well, yes. > > > > Repeating something that isn't a rational argument against relativity doesn't magically make it a rational argument so I still am left to conclude your motive to be something irrational like jealousy or racism, So which is it, as I'm not going to believe you until you're honest with yourself here. > > Will you two bloody morons stop spamming this thread ?? > > Thank you in advance, > > Julio Hi Julio - this happened several times before with Maciej. A while ago I decided to test just how strong his compulsion to always have the last word was and simply began responding with single upper-case letters: "A." then "B.", etc. I was quite sure we'd run out of the alphabet and was ready to start with "AA." and so on but much to my surprise Maciej stopped around "M." (I forget exactly - still, impressive :-) ). We are dealing with a disturbed maniac here, it's an interesting case. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web