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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393270 > unrolled thread

What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant?

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

Contents

  What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 15:52 -0700
    Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:45 -0700
    Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-22 11:47 +1000
      Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 02:07 -0700
      Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 09:20 -0500
        Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 12:22 -0700
    Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-22 01:49 -0700
      Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 12:24 -0700
      Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 08:46 -0700
        Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 09:14 -0700
          Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 09:44 -0700
            Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 10:47 -0700
              Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-24 13:05 -0700
                Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 15:27 -0700
                  Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 09:45 -0700
                    Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 10:07 -0700
                      Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 10:42 -0700
                        Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 13:26 -0700
                          Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 15:31 -0700
                            Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-29 15:50 -0700
                              Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 12:16 -0700
        Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-30 10:01 -0700
    Re: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-23 13:02 -0700
    What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 06:21 -0700
      What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:01 -0700
        What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:11 -0700
          What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 07:41 -0700
            What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:25 -0700
              What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:37 -0700
                What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:58 -0700
                  What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:34 -0700
                    What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 09:46 -0700
                      What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 11:07 -0700
                    What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 18:05 -0700
                      What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 20:56 -0700
                  What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 19:24 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#393270 — What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q 
 Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant?

The speed of light can only be constant if the motion of the observer (Gracy in the video) changes the wavelength of the incoming light in the following idiotic way:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif

Needless to say, any wavelength (of light, sound, water waves etc.) is independent of the speed of the observer. The unavoidable conclusion is that the speed of light relative to the observer does vary with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#393277

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 3:53:00 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q 
>  Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant?
> 
> The speed of light can only be constant if the motion of the observer (Gracy in the video) changes the wavelength of the incoming light in the following idiotic way:
> 
> http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif
> 
> Needless to say, any wavelength (of light, sound, water waves etc.) is independent of the speed of the observer. The unavoidable conclusion is that the speed of light relative to the observer does vary with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Go collect your Nobel prize ASAP.

Idiot.

--
Jan

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

#393283

On 22/09/2016 8:52 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q Brian Greene: What does
> it mean for the speed of light to be constant?
>
> The speed of light can only be constant if the motion of the observer
> (Gracy in the video) changes the wavelength of the incoming light in
> the following idiotic way:
>
>

This is an obnoxious way of debating a subject. Essentially, the writer 
attempts to persuade the reader to accept a point not by arguing its 
validity, but by indicating that the reader is themselves idiotic if 
they don't accept it.

Such an approach has no place in science.

Sylvia.

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

#393310

W dniu czwartek, 22 września 2016 03:47:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:

> This is an obnoxious way of debating a subject. Essentially, the writer 
> attempts to persuade the reader to accept a point not by arguing its 
> validity, but by indicating that the reader is themselves idiotic if 
> they don't accept it.
> 
> Such an approach has no place in science.

Wrong, Sylvia. You're a physicists, science isn't
physical. You know a little about it. The above IS
the approach of science.

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

#393337

On 9/21/2016 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/09/2016 8:52 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q Brian Greene: What does
>> it mean for the speed of light to be constant?
>>
>> The speed of light can only be constant if the motion of the observer
>> (Gracy in the video) changes the wavelength of the incoming light in
>> the following idiotic way:
>>
>>
>
> This is an obnoxious way of debating a subject. Essentially, the writer
> attempts to persuade the reader to accept a point not by arguing its
> validity, but by indicating that the reader is themselves idiotic if
> they don't accept it.
>
> Such an approach has no place in science.
>
> Sylvia.

Pentcho has always believed that physics should be consistent with HIS 
intuition. And if physicists maintain that something is true that 
conflicts with HIS intuition, then they are guilty of idiocy or lunacy.

Pentcho is not prepared to accept that his intuition might be just flat 
wrong.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#393376

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 7:20:39 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/21/2016 8:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 22/09/2016 8:52 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q Brian Greene: What does
> >> it mean for the speed of light to be constant?
> >>
> >> The speed of light can only be constant if the motion of the observer
> >> (Gracy in the video) changes the wavelength of the incoming light in
> >> the following idiotic way:
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This is an obnoxious way of debating a subject. Essentially, the writer
> > attempts to persuade the reader to accept a point not by arguing its
> > validity, but by indicating that the reader is themselves idiotic if
> > they don't accept it.
> >
> > Such an approach has no place in science.
> >
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Pentcho has always believed that physics should be consistent with HIS 
> intuition.

That's pretty much the standard crank approach, Pentcho is not unusual here.

--
Jan

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

#393309

In order for the speed of light to appear to be constant (and Einsteinians to safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"), two idiocies should be regarded as facts:

1. The motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming light. (This idiocy was discussed in my previous posting.)

2. The wavefronts bunch up (the wavelength decreases) in front of a light source which starts moving towards the observer: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary source) 

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif (moving source) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4OnBYrbCjY 
 "The Doppler Effect: what does motion do to waves?" 

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf 
 Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." 

For waves other than light waves the moving source does indeed emit shorter wavelength, and the reason is that the speed of the waves relative to the source decreases when the source starts moving. The shortening is measurable in the frame of the source - the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ' (λ>λ') when the source is moving. 

For light waves this is obviously not the case - the speed of the light relative to the source does not change when the source starts moving. In the frame of the source the wavelength is measured to be λ when the source is stationary, and then it is measured to be λ again when the source starts moving, which means that the wavefronts DO NOT BUNCH UP in front of the moving source. 

Conclusion: The moving light source does not emit shorter wavelength. Rather, it emits faster light. If the source starts moving towards the stationary observer with speed v, the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity. Accordingly, the frequency measured by the stationary observer shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ. 

Pentcho Valev

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

#393377

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 1:49:04 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In order for the speed of light to appear to be constant (and Einsteinians

There are no "Einsteinians" any more than there are "Schroedingerians".

> to safely sing "Divine Einstein"

Nobody sings "Divine Einstein" except inside your foolish brain.

--
Jan

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

#393601

Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not constant: 

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html 
 "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. [...] In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. [...] If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/857 
 "Spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light" Science  20 Feb 2015: Vol. 347, Issue 6224, pp. 857-860 

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ 
 "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum [...] ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. [...] "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." 

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/23/Scientists-slow-down-light-particles/1191422035480 
 "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." 

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/417655/scitech/science/exclusive-this-pinay-physicist-can-slow-down-light-without-touching-it 
 "Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg 
 "Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light" 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/ 
 "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. [...] The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature." 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html 
 Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it." 

So the inconstancy of the speed of light has been abundantly proved but Einsteinians don't even think of it: 

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 
 "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/einstein-speed-limit.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#393603

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 9:46:27 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Experiments have unequivocally shown that the speed of light is not constant: 

It's not constant in a dielectric or vacuum waveguide, either, Prevaricating
One.  What the experiments DO NOT show is that the speed of light is
dependent upon the motion of the source, so you have refuted nothing at all,
except that you have a brain.

Gary

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

#393607

W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 18:14:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel

> 
> It's not constant in a dielectric or vacuum waveguide, either, Prevaricating
> One.  What the experiments DO NOT show is that the speed of light is
> dependent upon the motion of the source, so you have refuted nothing at all,
> except that you have a brain.
> 
> Gary

Pure stupidity.

c' = c - v, where the v is a velocity of a source,
according to the standard math.

Only an idiot can assume/deduce c = inv,
because the idiot replaces only the the: c' = c - v, by
t' = r'/c
then he lands at: r' = ct' in place of r' = c't, what nothing changes in fact.

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

#393616

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:44:57 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 18:14:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > 
> > It's not constant in a dielectric or vacuum waveguide, either, Prevaricating
> > One.  What the experiments DO NOT show is that the speed of light is
> > dependent upon the motion of the source, so you have refuted nothing at all,
> > except that you have a brain.
> > 
> > Gary
> 
> Pure stupidity.

You describe yourself very well, congratulations.

> c' = c - v, where the v is a velocity of a source,
> according to the standard math.

Math isn't reality, ignorant one.

> Only an idiot can assume/deduce c = inv,

I neither assume it nor deduce it, so I'm no idiot.  The idiot is the one
who assumes c' = c +/- v.  Now who would that be?  :-)

> because the idiot replaces only the the: c' = c - v, by
> t' = r'/c
> then he lands at: r' = ct' in place of r' = c't, what nothing changes in fact.

I didn't do that either.  The idiot is the one that ignores all the
experimental evidence and wallows in his own delusions.

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

#393641

W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 19:47:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 10:44:57 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 18:14:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel
> > > 
> > > It's not constant in a dielectric or vacuum waveguide, either, Prevaricating
> > > One.  What the experiments DO NOT show is that the speed of light is
> > > dependent upon the motion of the source, so you have refuted nothing at all,
> > > except that you have a brain.
> > > 
> > > Gary
> > 
> > Pure stupidity.
> 
> You describe yourself very well, congratulations.
> 
> > c' = c - v, where the v is a velocity of a source,
> > according to the standard math.
> 
> Math isn't reality, ignorant one.
> 
> > Only an idiot can assume/deduce c = inv,
> 
> I neither assume it nor deduce it, so I'm no idiot.  The idiot is the one
> who assumes c' = c +/- v.  Now who would that be?  :-)
> 
> > because the idiot replaces only the the: c' = c - v, by
> > t' = r'/c
> > then he lands at: r' = ct' in place of r' = c't, what nothing changes in fact.
> 
> I didn't do that either.  The idiot is the one that ignores all the
> experimental evidence and wallows in his own delusions.

You must avoid strongly any experience/evidence.

I see You are trained in the stupidity domain very well.
So, you should to keep of your speciality,
instead of wasting time in the alien areas for you,
like the math, logics, ect.

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

#393664

On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:05:31 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 19:47:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > Abysmally-stupid al... wrote:
> > >
> > > Pure stupidity.
> > 
> > You describe yourself very well, congratulations.
> > 
> > > c' = c - v, where the v is a velocity of a source,
> > > according to the standard math.
> > 
> > Math isn't reality, ignorant one.
> > 
> > > Only an idiot can assume/deduce c = inv,
> > 
> > I neither assume it nor deduce it, so I'm no idiot.  The idiot is the one
> > who assumes c' = c +/- v.  Now who would that be?  :-)
> > 
> > > because the idiot replaces only the the: c' = c - v, by t' = r'/c
> > > then he lands at: r' = ct' in place of r' = c't, what nothing changes
> > > in fact.
> > 
> > I didn't do that either.  The idiot is the one that ignores all the
> > experimental evidence and wallows in his own delusions.
> 
> You must avoid strongly any experience/evidence.

Speak for yourself, baloney-spewer.

> I see You are trained in the stupidity domain very well.
> So, you should to keep of your speciality,
> instead of wasting time in the alien areas for you,
> like the math, logics, ect.

Let's see YOUR degrees in math and physics, baloney-vomit.

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

#394267

W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 00:27:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:05:31 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu sobota, 24 września 2016 19:47:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > Abysmally-stupid al... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pure stupidity.
> > > 
> > > You describe yourself very well, congratulations.
> > > 
> > > > c' = c - v, where the v is a velocity of a source,
> > > > according to the standard math.
> > > 
> > > Math isn't reality, ignorant one.
> > > 
> > > > Only an idiot can assume/deduce c = inv,
> > > 
> > > I neither assume it nor deduce it, so I'm no idiot.  The idiot is the one
> > > who assumes c' = c +/- v.  Now who would that be?  :-)
> > > 
> > > > because the idiot replaces only the the: c' = c - v, by t' = r'/c
> > > > then he lands at: r' = ct' in place of r' = c't, what nothing changes
> > > > in fact.
> > > 
> > > I didn't do that either.  The idiot is the one that ignores all the
> > > experimental evidence and wallows in his own delusions.
> > 
> > You must avoid strongly any experience/evidence.
> 
> Speak for yourself, baloney-spewer.
> 
> > I see You are trained in the stupidity domain very well.
> > So, you should to keep of your speciality,
> > instead of wasting time in the alien areas for you,
> > like the math, logics, ect.
> 
> Let's see YOUR degrees in math and physics, baloney-vomit.

My degree is high above any standard nomenclature.

For example: I trained about 20 years: x + y = y + x...
and it's still true!

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

#394270

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45:27 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 00:27:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:05:31 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > You must avoid strongly any experience/evidence.
> > 
> > Speak for yourself, baloney-spewer.
> > 
> > > I see You are trained in the stupidity domain very well.
> > > So, you should to keep of your speciality,
> > > instead of wasting time in the alien areas for you,
> > > like the math, logics, ect.
> > 
> > Let's see YOUR degrees in math and physics, baloney-vomit.
> 
> My degree is high above any standard nomenclature.

IOW, you don't have any.  Got it.

> For example: I trained about 20 years: x + y = y + x...
> and it's still true!

It took you 20 years to learn that?  Indeed you are a moron.

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

#394271

W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:07:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45:27 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 00:27:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 2:05:31 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You must avoid strongly any experience/evidence.
> > > 
> > > Speak for yourself, baloney-spewer.
> > > 
> > > > I see You are trained in the stupidity domain very well.
> > > > So, you should to keep of your speciality,
> > > > instead of wasting time in the alien areas for you,
> > > > like the math, logics, ect.
> > > 
> > > Let's see YOUR degrees in math and physics, baloney-vomit.
> > 
> > My degree is high above any standard nomenclature.
> 
> IOW, you don't have any.  Got it.
> 
> > For example: I trained about 20 years: x + y = y + x...
> > and it's still true!
> 
> It took you 20 years to learn that?  Indeed you are a moron.

Oh, those stupid children!

I have a nice game for you.. maybe too hard... but you can try:

how to hide the: c-v inside a time transformation?

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

#394282

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:43:05 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:07:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45:27 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > >
> > > My degree is high above any standard nomenclature.
> > 
> > IOW, you don't have any.  Got it.
> > 
> > > For example: I trained about 20 years: x + y = y + x...
> > > and it's still true!
> > 
> > It took you 20 years to learn that?  Indeed you are a moron.
> 
> Oh, those stupid children!
> 
> I have a nice game for you.. maybe too hard... but you can try:
> 
> how to hide the: c-v inside a time transformation?

You never had much credibility, but you have now lost ALL, so anything you
say now is just crank baloney.

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

#394295

W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 22:26:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:43:05 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> >
> > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 19:07:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:45:27 AM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My degree is high above any standard nomenclature.
> > > 
> > > IOW, you don't have any.  Got it.
> > > 
> > > > For example: I trained about 20 years: x + y = y + x...
> > > > and it's still true!
> > > 
> > > It took you 20 years to learn that?  Indeed you are a moron.
> > 
> > Oh, those stupid children!
> > 
> > I have a nice game for you.. maybe too hard... but you can try:
> > 
> > how to hide the: c-v inside a time transformation?
> 
> You never had much credibility, but you have now lost ALL, so anything you
> say now is just crank baloney.

My credibility is infinitely... well known in the net.
So, You are very little informed.

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

#394296

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 4:31:05 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> My credibility is infinitely... well known in the net.
> So, You are very little informed.

Self-promotion by a lying weasel is useless.  Only scumbags do this.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web