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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376398 > unrolled thread

Which, precisely, experiments confirm...

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

Contents

  Which, precisely, experiments confirm... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 01:40 -0800
    Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-17 22:20 +1100
      Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 03:23 -0800
        Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:32 -0800
          Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-17 22:59 -0800
            Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 06:02 -0800
              Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Monique de Brabant <moniqb@cafedelmar.org> - 2016-02-18 15:32 +0000
                Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 08:06 -0800
                Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 11:26 +1100
                  Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 22:54 -0800
                Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:10 -0800
              Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-18 19:23 +0100
                Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:34 -0800
                  Re: Which, precisely, experiments confirm... Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-18 20:38 +0100

#376398 — Which, precisely, experiments confirm...

that clocks of a relativistic moron are:

-proper?

-standard?

-good?

-real?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#376401

On 17/02/2016 8:40 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> that clocks of a relativistic moron are:
>
> -proper?
>
> -standard?
>
> -good?
>
> -real?
>

Care to define your terms?

No, thought not.

Sylvia.

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

#376403

W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 12:20:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 17/02/2016 8:40 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > that clocks of a relativistic moron are:
> >
> > -proper?
> >
> > -standard?
> >
> > -good?
> >
> > -real?
> >
> 
> Care to define your terms?
> 
> No, thought not.

Well, does anyone of You care, when using these terms?
No, thought not.

Care to define your term "define"?
No, thought not.

And, care to answer?
No, thought not.

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

#376429

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:23:36 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 12:20:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> >
> > On 17/02/2016 8:40 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > that clocks of a relativistic moron are:
> > >
> > > -proper?
> > >
> > > -standard?
> > >
> > > -good?
> > >
> > > -real?
> > >
> > 
> > Care to define your terms?
> > 
> > No, thought not.
> 
> Well, does anyone of You care, when using these terms?
> No, thought not.

Anyone with a brain can look them up in a scientific dictionary.  Will you
bother to do that?  No, thought not.

> Care to define your term "define"?
> No, thought not.

You thought wrong, imbecile.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define

"1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
"2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe"
"3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly"

Which, of course, you NEVER do because to do so would bring down your
dishonest house of cards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

"A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or
other set of symbols).[1] [a] Definitions can be classified into two large
categories, intensional definitions (which try to give the essence of a
term) and extensional definitions (which list every single object that a
term describes).[2] A term may have many different senses and multiple
meanings, and thus require multiple definitions"

> And, care to answer?
> No, thought not.

Your thoughts are proven to be rubbish.

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

#376434

W dniu czwartek, 18 lutego 2016 03:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:23:36 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu środa, 17 lutego 2016 12:20:37 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> > >
> > > On 17/02/2016 8:40 PM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > that clocks of a relativistic moron are:
> > > >
> > > > -proper?
> > > >
> > > > -standard?
> > > >
> > > > -good?
> > > >
> > > > -real?
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Care to define your terms?
> > > 
> > > No, thought not.
> > 
> > Well, does anyone of You care, when using these terms?
> > No, thought not.
> 
> Anyone with a brain can look them up in a scientific dictionary. 

Somehow, Sylvia didn't think about it, when
asking me.

> You thought wrong, imbecile.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define
> 
> "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"

Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".

> "2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe"

Fine, now define "explain", "identify", "nature", "essential", "qualities" and "describe".

> "3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly"

Fine, now define "fix", "lay down", "clearly", "definitely", 
"specify" and "distinctly".
 
> Your thoughts are proven to be rubbish.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
So, which, precisely, experiment has confirmed
that your idiotic concept of clocks is:
-proper?
-standard?
-good?
-real?

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

#376441

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:59:41 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 lutego 2016 03:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:23:36 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, does anyone of You care, when using these terms?
> > > No, thought not.
> > 
> > Anyone with a brain can look them up in a scientific dictionary. 
> 
> Somehow, Sylvia didn't think about it, when
> asking me.

That's because you don't use accepted definitions when spewing baloney.

> > You thought wrong, imbecile.
> > 
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define
> > 
> > "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
> 
> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".

Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

> > "2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; describe"
> 
> Fine, now define "explain", "identify", "nature", "essential", "qualities"
> and "describe".

Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

> > "3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly"
> 
> Fine, now define "fix", "lay down", "clearly", "definitely", 
> "specify" and "distinctly".

Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

> > Your thoughts are proven to be rubbish.
> 
> Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
> So, which, precisely, experiment has confirmed
> that your idiotic concept of clocks is:
> -proper?
> -standard?
> -good?
> -real?

Your "stating" that proves you are an idiot troll.

So go pound sand up your butt until it fills that vacuum in your head.

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

#376445

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
>> 
>> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".
> 
> Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

Not at all, lady. That definition is incorrect, can't you see it? In 
physics "define" is primary used in connection with a phenomenon, which 
appear "as is" in Nature. The most fundamental in connection with such a 
phenomenon is that it's appearance is persistent, aka repetition.

As you clearly can see, lady, "define" is rather a definition coming from 
Nature, and not from humans. Hopefully you just learn another thing you 
may benefit in your daily physics. Thank me later.

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

#376452

El jueves, 18 de febrero de 2016, 12:32:51 (UTC-3), Monique de Brabant  escribió:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> >> > "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
> >> 
> >> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".
> > 
> > Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.
> 
> Not at all, lady. That definition is incorrect, can't you see it? In 
> physics "define" is primary used in connection with a phenomenon, which 
> appear "as is" in Nature. The most fundamental in connection with such a 
> phenomenon is that it's appearance is persistent, aka repetition.
> 
> As you clearly can see, lady, "define" is rather a definition coming from 
> Nature, and not from humans. Hopefully you just learn another thing you 
> may benefit in your daily physics. Thank me later.

The only funny thing of the nameshifting troll is the ridiculous names he/she/it adopts. It is so easy to recognize the moron, that it is one of the highlight of the day.

Keep up the good work moron!

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

#376501

On 19/02/2016 2:32 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>
>>>> "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
>>>
>>> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".
>>
>> Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.
>
> Not at all, lady. That definition is incorrect, can't you see it? In
> physics "define" is primary used in connection with a phenomenon, which
> appear "as is" in Nature. The most fundamental in connection with such a
> phenomenon is that it's appearance is persistent, aka repetition.
>
> As you clearly can see, lady, "define" is rather a definition coming from
> Nature, and not from humans. Hopefully you just learn another thing you
> may benefit in your daily physics. Thank me later.
>

The universe defines the phenomena. Humans define the words. The link 
between them is often elusive in this group.

Sylvia.

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

#376515

W dniu piątek, 19 lutego 2016 01:26:41 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 19/02/2016 2:32 AM, Monique de Brabant wrote:
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> >>>> "1. to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"
> >>>
> >>> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".
> >>
> >> Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.
> >
> > Not at all, lady. That definition is incorrect, can't you see it? In
> > physics "define" is primary used in connection with a phenomenon, which
> > appear "as is" in Nature. The most fundamental in connection with such a
> > phenomenon is that it's appearance is persistent, aka repetition.
> >
> > As you clearly can see, lady, "define" is rather a definition coming from
> > Nature, and not from humans. Hopefully you just learn another thing you
> > may benefit in your daily physics. Thank me later.
> >
> 
> The universe defines the phenomena.

Blah, blah, blah.

> Humans define the words. The link 
> between them is often elusive in this group.

Only Great Guru was wise enough to link them
properly!! He was the One knowing what is good 
and proper!!!
Mortals, bow before the incredible wisdom of 
Great Guru!!!

So, which, precisely, experiment, do confirm
that Your clocks are
-proper?
-good?
-standard?
-real?

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

#376516

W dniu czwartek, 18 lutego 2016 16:32:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Monique de Brabant napisał:

> As you clearly can see, lady, "define" is rather a definition coming from 
> Nature, and not from humans. Hopefully you just learn another thing you 
> may benefit in your daily physics. Thank me later.

Bullshit, nature has nothing to do with definitions. Neither
it needs them, nor it has capabilities to create them.

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

#376475

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:31f55035-2cca-49ae-bf9e-9927ab9f9b7f@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:59:41 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 18 lutego 2016 03:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel 
> napisał:
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 4:23:36 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, does anyone of You care, when using these terms?
> > > No, thought not.
> >
> > Anyone with a brain can look them up in a scientific dictionary.
>
> Somehow, Sylvia didn't think about it, when
> asking me.

|That's because you don't use accepted definitions when spewing baloney.

A completely groundless lie, as expected from
relativistic trash.
>
> Fine, now define "state", "set forth", "meaning", "word and "phrase".

|Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.


Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

> > "2. to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of; 
> > describe"
>
> Fine, now define "explain", "identify", "nature", "essential", "qualities"
> and "describe".

|Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

> > "3. to fix or lay down clearly and definitely; specify distinctly"
>
> Fine, now define "fix", "lay down", "clearly", "definitely",
> "specify" and "distinctly".

|Your "asking" that proves you are an idiot troll.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.

> > Your thoughts are proven to be rubbish.
>
> Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
> So, which, precisely, experiment has confirmed
> that your idiotic concept of clocks is:
> -proper?
> -standard?
> -good?
> -real?

|Your "stating" that proves you are an idiot troll.
|So go pound sand up your butt until it fills that vacuum in your head.

Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. 

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

#376485

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> |That's because you don't use accepted definitions when spewing baloney.
> 
> A completely groundless lie, as expected from
> relativistic trash.

Proof that Wozniak is a stupid, lying troll.

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

#376487

Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:52912088-be17-4bf9-a093-3c9982e2213a@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>
> |That's because you don't use accepted definitions when spewing baloney.
>
> A completely groundless lie, as expected from
> relativistic trash.

|Proof that Wozniak is a stupid, lying troll.


Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web