Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #376518 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 18:44 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-18 23:59 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 09:42 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 10:15 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-02-19 12:23 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 03:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 05:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 22:03 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-19 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:01 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 19:56 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-19 01:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:45 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:02 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:53 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 10:02 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-22 10:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 12:43 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 03:49 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-19 20:13 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:27 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-02-27 15:08 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:04 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kunz <gx@fp.cdfy.7h> - 2016-02-19 13:08 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-21 14:20 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-07 20:44 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:24 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 14:37 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-19 09:40 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-19 17:13 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:14 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-24 09:44 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 08:38 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-02-20 11:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-19 14:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-20 07:49 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 22:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-21 09:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0500
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:28 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:18 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:11 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 09:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 10:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-21 11:30 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-23 15:27 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-23 12:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-23 23:11 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 14:18 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:00 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 17:14 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 09:34 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 12:54 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-24 22:36 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-24 18:27 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 08:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 04:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 18:17 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 17:43 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 19:20 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 10:53 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-24 11:26 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-25 16:10 +1100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 07:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 10:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 12:11 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 13:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:21 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 15:51 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-25 20:07 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 18:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:31 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-27 12:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 22:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-27 22:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-28 09:50 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-25 22:18 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-25 16:56 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 20:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-25 23:12 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-25 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 00:33 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:41 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-26 15:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 11:51 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 12:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-27 13:08 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-27 13:48 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 08:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 10:24 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-28 11:36 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-28 16:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 12:28 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 00:21 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 00:32 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:42 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:04 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:16 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:39 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 13:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 15:30 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 14:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:31 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:34 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:35 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 16:37 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:15 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:40 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:55 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:26 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-29 16:45 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 04:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-07 12:05 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 19:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 23:13 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 09:19 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 07:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-20 18:29 -0600
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-20 16:35 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-21 10:09 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 22:29 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 10:39 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 03:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 05:07 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 05:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:03 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 06:37 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 06:46 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 15:25 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-22 23:50 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:43 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-22 18:50 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-22 21:14 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-22 13:47 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-02-23 21:59 +0100
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed Stzepan Zdrobněliny <stzepan282@guadalajara.org> - 2016-02-23 23:07 +0000
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:14 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 11:38 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-24 11:54 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed jamesl51165@gmail.com - 2016-02-24 11:58 -0800
Re: Why isn't ether confirmed JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 12:47 -0800
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb605604-96f7-44b9-8d90-e4f4df21dc5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376910 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 00:18:20 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 11:30:37 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 19:37:17 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:07:49 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > > Simply: the light is a wave, > > > > > > > > > > But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern > > > > > experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > The light is a wave, and without any doubt; > > > > pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. > > > > > > > > Any special 'quantum effects' don't exist in fact! > > > > These all are just the superstitions of stupid amateurs... > > > > full analogy to the Ptolemy geocentric idiotic model. > > > > > > Translation: > > > > > > "I am hereby declaring everything I don't understand 'superstitions of stupid amateurs' and > > > a 'full analogy to the Ptolemy geocentric idiotic model'". > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > I have only one simple sugstion for you: > > > > Wypierdalaj stąd, debilu. > > No. And I will keep pointing out your stupidity as much as I please as long > as you insist making dumb negative remarks about stuff you don't understand > and therefore haven't earned the right to comment negatively on. I thought > this sort of thing would be perfectly obvious to any honest adult? Oh! Adult bambus still believes in the space/time geometry... haha! So, I propose you to use rather the Flattened Earth Model - it's highly more advanced, reliable and rational.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <22365364-a057-4305-be4c-c2af768fd238@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376962 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:33:06 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 00:18:20 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 11:30:37 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 19:37:17 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:07:49 AM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > > > > > On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > > > > > Simply: the light is a wave, > > > > > > > > > > > > But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern > > > > > > experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > > > > > > > The light is a wave, and without any doubt; > > > > > pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. > > > > > > > > > > Any special 'quantum effects' don't exist in fact! > > > > > These all are just the superstitions of stupid amateurs... > > > > > full analogy to the Ptolemy geocentric idiotic model. > > > > > > > > Translation: > > > > > > > > "I am hereby declaring everything I don't understand 'superstitions of stupid amateurs' and > > > > a 'full analogy to the Ptolemy geocentric idiotic model'". > > > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > I have only one simple sugstion for you: > > > > > > Wypierdalaj stąd, debilu. > > > > No. And I will keep pointing out your stupidity as much as I please as long > > as you insist making dumb negative remarks about stuff you don't understand > > and therefore haven't earned the right to comment negatively on. I thought > > this sort of thing would be perfectly obvious to any honest adult? > > Oh! Adult bambus still believes in the space/time geometry... haha! > > So, I propose you to use rather the Flattened Earth Model - > it's highly more advanced, reliable and rational. Whatever turns you on. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 15:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dj25efF8k4cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376773 |
On 22/02/2016 4:07 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: >> On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >>> Simply: the light is a wave, >> >> But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern >> experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. >> >> >> Tom Roberts > > The light is a wave, and without any doubt; > pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. And the photoelectric effect? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 12:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56b34171-97ca-46ef-ae29-6447d4eff151@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376926 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 05:28:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > On 22/02/2016 4:07 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > >> On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > >>> Simply: the light is a wave, > >> > >> But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern > >> experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. > >> > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > > > The light is a wave, and without any doubt; > > pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. > > And the photoelectric effect? > > Sylvia. The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. BTW: it's very complicated.. mathematicaly, therefore the simplified form is known and promoted only: the einsteinian corpuscular surogate.. additionaly the SR-fallacy is compatible with corpuscular model of light only, thus there is no way... in fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 13:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3f99a255-066f-4e6a-adbf-80adb3c53827@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376961 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 12:21:28 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 23 lutego 2016 05:28:02 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał: > > On 22/02/2016 4:07 AM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu niedziela, 21 lutego 2016 01:11:55 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > > >> On 2/19/16 2/19/16 4:16 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > >>> Simply: the light is a wave, > > >> > > >> But it ISN'T. All you do is display your profound ignorance of modern > > >> experimental physics. All the many quantum effects of light disprove your assertion. > > >> > > >> > > >> Tom Roberts > > > > > > The light is a wave, and without any doubt; > > > pierdylion of experiments showed this fact long ago successfully. > > > > And the photoelectric effect? > > > > Sylvia. > > The photoeffect is fully explained in the classical waves mechanics only. > > BTW: it's very complicated.. mathematicaly, > therefore the simplified form is known and promoted only: > the einsteinian corpuscular surogate.. Patent nonsense. All garbage talk and NO REFERENCES. Don't be afraid, tell us about that "classical waves mechanics only" baloney and especially about that "very complicated.. mathematicaly" bit. I'd loooove to see that! By the way, you don't even know history: far from being "promoted", Einstein's theories were ignored as much as possible, people forget that even the light bending near the Sun was NOT enough to make him universally accepted by physicists. It was the _Compton effect_, _not_ relativity (contrary to the usual anti-Einstein gobbledygook on this newsgroup(*)) (1923, so 7 years after GR) which made scientists accept Einstein fully and made them also accept his model for the photoelectric effect. He got the Nobel for it too, not for relativity. (*)One would think people who hate Einstein so much (because with them it's always personal, of course, it's never - God forbid! - about science) would at least do some research to dig up any "dirt". [more idiocies deleted] -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 23:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <naildu$6sq$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376966 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:3f99a255-066f-4e6a-adbf-80adb3c53827@googlegroups.com... |By the way, you don't even know history: far from being "promoted", Einstein's |theories were ignored as much as possible, people forget that even the light |bending near the Sun was NOT enough to make him universally accepted by |physicists. Maybe that's because The Shit states very clearly, that light never bend, by definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 14:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <13426638-b77d-4e06-90fe-efd66ee63fd4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376969 |
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:3f99a255-066f-4e6a-adbf-80adb3c53827@googlegroups.com... > > |By the way, you don't even know history: far from being "promoted", > Einstein's > |theories were ignored as much as possible, people forget that even the > light > |bending near the Sun was NOT enough to make him universally accepted by > |physicists. > > Maybe that's because The Shit states very clearly, that light never bend, > by definition. The readers should note that Maciej has been pointed out already that he is confusing space with spacetime. He just waits a couple of months and then starts recycling. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 08:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <najl0q$5l0$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #376971 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:13426638-b77d-4e06-90fe-efd66ee63fd4@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:3f99a255-066f-4e6a-adbf-80adb3c53827@googlegroups.com... > > |By the way, you don't even know history: far from being "promoted", > Einstein's > |theories were ignored as much as possible, people forget that even the > light > |bending near the Sun was NOT enough to make him universally accepted by > |physicists. > > Maybe that's because The Shit states very clearly, that light never bend, > by definition. |The readers should note that Maciej has been pointed out already that |he is confusing space with spacetime. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't notice the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60a8fe4a-0a99-455d-9a7e-9c9eefb94a4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377012 |
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:10:19 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:13426638-b77d-4e06-90fe-efd66ee63fd4@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:3f99a255-066f-4e6a-adbf-80adb3c53827@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > By the way, you don't even know history: far from being "promoted", > > > > Einstein's theories were ignored as much as possible, people forget > > > > that even the light bending near the Sun was NOT enough to make him > > > > universally accepted by physicists. > > > > > > Maybe that's because The Shit states very clearly, that light never bend, > > > by definition. > > > > The readers should note that Maciej has been pointed out already that > > he is confusing space with spacetime. > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. It's obvious all you can do is regurgitate your repetitious baloney. How disgusting :-) > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according > to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't > notice the question. Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. Readers should note that Maciej never asks the right questions, always trying to inveigle an improper response so he can assuage his deficient mentality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nakoe2$1pmh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377047 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according to his >> Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't notice the >> question. > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. Are you just alluding that there are no straight lines in Relativity?? This will undoubtedly make Relativity also guilty of eliminating the foundation of Physics, which is the Principle of Least Action. Sorry to make you sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 09:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29ee141e-031e-40bc-a776-1025644e2e91@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377048 |
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > The stupid 'nym-shifting troll can't even format a reply correctly. I had to correct his error-prone crap by including who the idiot was who posted this: > > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:10:19 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according to his > > > Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't notice the > > > question. > > > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. > > Are you just alluding that there are no straight lines in Relativity?? No, I'm not, dishonest sophist. Relativity can exist without matter, lying bonehead. Unfortunately, without matter, it doesn't describe our world, sprayer of baloney. > This will undoubtedly make Relativity also guilty of eliminating the > foundation of Physics, which is the Principle of Least Action. Sorry to > make you sad. You just showed you are guilty of being a stupid 'nym-shifting, dishonest, baloney-spewing troll. Sorry you make yourself look stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nal9oo$qng$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377049 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 10:14:49 AM UTC-7, PC wrote: >> >> Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > >> > > The stupid 'nym-shifting troll can't even format a reply correctly. I > had to correct his error-prone crap by including who the idiot was who > posted this: In English, this should be..?? >> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:10:19 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according to his >> > > Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't notice the >> > > question. >> > >> > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter >> > that we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. Does not mater. YOU said that YES. Not him. "there is no such thing in the world of matter that we inhabit". No straight lines, my little Gary?? >> Are you just alluding that there are no straight lines in Relativity?? > > No, I'm not, dishonest sophist. Relativity can exist without matter, > lying bonehead. Unfortunately, without matter, it doesn't describe our > world, sprayer of baloney. What is bullshit, whom are you fighting, my little Gary. That's not me. You are my little Gary, and I am teaching you Physics. Professionalingly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 23:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9ff37f1-a347-47ae-8aa3-4120188680df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377049 |
W dniu środa, 24 lutego 2016 18:34:57 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > > > > > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according to his > > > > Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't notice the > > > > question. > > > > > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > > > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. > > > > Are you just alluding that there are no straight lines in Relativity?? > > No, I'm not, dishonest sophist. Yes, you are, poor idiot. You are that stupid, as anyone can see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naphte$18jv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377163 |
mlwozniak wrote: >> > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter >> > > that we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. >> > >> > Are you just alluding that there are no straight lines in >> > Relativity?? >> >> No, I'm not, dishonest sophist. > > Yes, you are, poor idiot. > You are that stupid, as anyone can see above. He is so stupid just saying that there are straight lines in Relativity. Not only that he is contradicting himself, he ferociously dismiss it. He is an algebra man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 22:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nal7ob$tp7$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377047 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:60a8fe4a-0a99-455d-9a7e-9c9eefb94a4d@googlegroups.com... > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according > to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't > notice the question. |Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that |we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. I'm not asking about the world we inhabit. I'm asking about The Shit and its geometry. |Readers should note that Maciej never asks the right questions As relativistic moron can't answer, they can't be right. | always |trying to inveigle an improper response so he can assuage his deficient |mentality. Rave, moton, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-24 18:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2be64ffb-5e13-4e21-a7ce-b2df3932faa6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377067 |
On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 2:36:13 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:60a8fe4a-0a99-455d-9a7e-9c9eefb94a4d@googlegroups.com... It's interesting how Wozniak makes the same formatting mistakes as the 'nym-shifting troll. Is this because he has an inferior browser or an inferior mentality? So once again I have to edit his crap for him so > it makes sense: > > Wozniak wrote: > > > > > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according > > > to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't > > > notice the question. > > > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. > > I'm not asking about the world we inhabit. I'm asking > about The Shit and its geometry. No, you're not, lying weasel. You asked about a straight line in "space." "Space" is something in the real world. You're just pulling your stupid sophistry ... again, dishonest motor-mouth. > |Readers should note that Maciej never asks the right questions > > As relativistic moron can't answer, they can't be right. As dishonest lying Weasel Wozniak never states an honest fact, he can't be right. > > always trying to inveigle an improper response so he can assuage his > > deficient mentality. > > Rave, moton, and spit. What else can you do. Yep, trying to assuage his deficient mentality with regurgitated baloney. It doesn't work, fool. Neither does your stupid posts as a 'nym-shifting troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 08:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <namc9t$k1o$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377073 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2be64ffb-5e13-4e21-a7ce-b2df3932faa6@googlegroups.com... > > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according > > > to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't > > > notice the question. > > > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. > > I'm not asking about the world we inhabit. I'm asking > about The Shit and its geometry. |No, you're not, lying weasel. You asked about a straight line in "space." Yes, I am. You simply can't read, as expected from relativistic trash. |"Space" is something in the real world. No, space is an abstract. But it's too complicated for your tiny brain. |Yep, trying to assuage his deficient mentality with regurgitated baloney. |It doesn't work, fool. Neither does your stupid posts as a 'nym-shifting |troll. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 04:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9232c186-d149-4315-8cdd-22238e6f345f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377079 |
On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:2be64ffb-5e13-4e21-a7ce-b2df3932faa6@googlegroups.com... > > Wozniak is still incapable of formatting a post properly. He is incompetent. Incompetent Wozniak wrote: > > > > Readers should note, that Jan, when asked what is (according > > > > to his Shit) straight line in space - just pretends he didn't > > > > notice the question. Gary wrote: > > > Maybe that's because there is no such thing in the world of matter that > > > we inhabit. It's not even a valid question. > > > > I'm not asking about the world we inhabit. I'm asking > > about The Shit and its geometry. Gary wrote: > No, you're not, lying weasel. You asked about a straight line in "space." Stupidly foolish Wozniak wrote: > Yes, I am. You simply can't read, as expected from relativistic > trash. Wozniak simply is too stupid and incompetent to understand what he writes. > > "Space" is something in the real world. > > No, space is an abstract. Baloney. Why don't you take the next rocket to orbit, open the airlock and see if you can breathe, moron. Find out that your asinine "abstract space" is very real. > But it's too complicated for your tiny brain. You have a big brain case but it's full of "abstract space." > > Yep, trying to assuage his deficient mentality with regurgitated baloney. > > It doesn't work, fool. Neither does your stupid posts as a 'nym-shifting > > troll. > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. I can understand is anything BUT abstract, whereas your moronic mind is too spacey to understand reality. So all you do is post pure baloney using a technology that you have no hope of understanding. You are as stupid as those ISIS fools who want to live in the 7th century which has none of the technology they're relying on to promote their futile attempt to destroy civilization. Now THAT'S stupid!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 18:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nancum$k5m$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377086 |
Użytkownik "Gary Harnagel" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:9232c186-d149-4315-8cdd-22238e6f345f@googlegroups.com... |Baloney. Why don't you take the next rocket to orbit, open the airlock |and see if you can breathe, moron. Find out that your asinine "abstract |space" is very real. ANY of your gurus can tell you space is abstract, and your Shit even neglect it. > > Yep, trying to assuage his deficient mentality with regurgitated > > baloney. > > It doesn't work, fool. Neither does your stupid posts as a > > 'nym-shifting > > troll. > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do. |I can understand is anything BUT abstract, whereas your moronic mind is too |spacey to understand reality. Yeah. The reality you cut GPS clocks off, because they didn't match your Shit and your "understanding".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PC <pc468@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-25 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naneg4$69b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377099 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > |I can understand is anything BUT abstract, whereas your moronic mind is > too |spacey to understand reality. > > Yeah. The reality you cut GPS clocks off, because they didn't match your > Shit and your "understanding". YOu are wrong Witzeg. Gary does not understand Relativity. He just choose to go along with mainstream and believe in Relativity. To understand Relativity he needs Tensors, a domain which admittedly is not part of his luggage. He is an actor, a something they can always use in capitalist Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web