Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #614301 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:46 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 16:52 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-07-03 10:24 +1000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 17:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-07-02 19:43 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-02 23:23 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:08 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:31 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:50 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 01:01 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 09:52 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-03 12:16 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:04 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:28 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 14:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-03 22:56 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 10:36 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-05 21:21 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-05 14:27 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 20:59 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 00:11 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:12 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-03 13:27 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:02 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 14:36 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 18:45 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-02 19:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:05 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:34 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 21:49 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 16:10 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-07-02 23:19 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:22 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 00:26 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> - 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:24 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-07-03 13:39 -0500
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-03 17:22 -0400
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 22:06 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-07-03 11:35 -0700
Re: Feynman rejected the second postulate. "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-07-03 09:14 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 09:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgfd7hF2m6tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614337 |
On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> > >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source. >> Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on> >> Physics to explaining relativity. > > Did he also explain why it is inconsistent? Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 01:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ec111c8-75e2-4761-9382-b8aee1af3050n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614339 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:55:34 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He > >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> > > >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > >> Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on> > >> Physics to explaining relativity. > > > > Did he also explain why it is inconsistent? > Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? Ah. So he didn't. Who can be surprised?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 10:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgffn6F328gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614340 |
On 2023-07-03 08:23:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:55:34 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3 >> July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On >> 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He> >> >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> >> >> >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source.> >> Feynman >> devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on>> >> >> Physics to explaining relativity.> >> > Did he also explain why it is >> inconsistent? >> Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? > > Ah. So he didn't. Who can be surprised? In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world has ever known. So maybe you can explain your non sequitur: how does your conclusion that Feynman didn't discuss this so-called inconsistency follow logically from your non-reading of his books? -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 02:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f62724d-157b-4713-b26e-5706297bd315n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614341 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 10:38:02 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-03 08:23:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:55:34 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3 > >> July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On > >> 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He> >> > >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> >> > >> >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source.> >> Feynman > >> devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on>> >> > >> Physics to explaining relativity.> >> > Did he also explain why it is > >> inconsistent? > >> Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? > > > > Ah. So he didn't. Who can be surprised? > In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world has > ever known. No, I didn't. My claim was different, but, of course, you're as dumb as arrogant. > So maybe you can explain your non sequitur: how does your > conclusion that Feynman didn't discuss this so-called inconsistency > follow logically from your non-reading of his books? Right after your explaination how you concluded I didn't read Feynman from my question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgfjieF3kuoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614342 |
On 2023-07-03 09:01:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 10:38:02 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> On 2023-07-03 08:23:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3 >> July 2023 at 09:55:34 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On >> 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3> >> >> July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> >> >> 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He> >>> >> >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> >> >>> >> >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source.> >> >> Feynman> >> devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures >> on>> >>> >> Physics to explaining relativity.> >> > Did he also explain >> why it is> >> inconsistent?> >> Ah. So you've not actually read >> Feynman's books. Who can be surprised?> >> > Ah. So he didn't. Who can >> be surprised? >> In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world has> >> ever known. > > No, I didn't. My claim was different, but, of course, > you're as dumb as arrogant. Can you remind us what the claim was? > >> So maybe you can explain your non sequitur: how does your> conclusion >> that Feynman didn't discuss this so-called inconsistency> follow >> logically from your non-reading of his books? > > Right after your explaination how you concluded I didn't read > Feynman from my question. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50ce7cff-3aad-4065-ac5f-71414305c246n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614344 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 11:43:47 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-03 09:01:37 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 10:38:02 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> On 2023-07-03 08:23:43 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3 > >> July 2023 at 09:55:34 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On > >> 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:>> > On Monday, 3> >> > >> July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On> >> > >> 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He> >>> >> > >> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> > >> >>> >> >> its velocity is not independent of that of the source.> >> > >> Feynman> >> devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures > >> on>> >>> >> Physics to explaining relativity.> >> > Did he also explain > >> why it is> >> inconsistent?> >> Ah. So you've not actually read > >> Feynman's books. Who can be surprised?> >> > Ah. So he didn't. Who can > >> be surprised? > >> In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world has> > >> ever known. > > > > No, I didn't. My claim was different, but, of course, > > you're as dumb as arrogant. > Can you remind us what the claim was? Yes. > > > >> So maybe you can explain your non sequitur: how does your> conclusion > >> that Feynman didn't discuss this so-called inconsistency> follow > >> logically from your non-reading of his books? > > > > Right after your explaination how you concluded I didn't read > > Feynman from my question. > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kgfpe6F4h71U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614345 |
On 2023-07-03 10:03:39 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 11:43:47 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >> [ … ] >> >> In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world >> has>> >> ever known.> >> > No, I didn't. My claim was different, but, >> of course,> > you're as dumb as arrogant. >> Can you remind us what the claim was? > > Yes. Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but "one of the best". Big difference. -- athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 05:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26b12ec7-7d31-49ef-a100-406a4125c83cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614347 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 13:23:55 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-03 10:03:39 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 11:43:47 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >> [ … ] > >> > > >> In the past you have claimed to be the greatest logician the world > >> has>> >> ever known.> >> > No, I didn't. My claim was different, but, > >> of course,> > you're as dumb as arrogant. > >> Can you remind us what the claim was? > > > > Yes. > Very helpful. If you asked me if whether I can be helpful for you - i would answer "no". > But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters > of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose > as I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm > one of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" > but "one of the best". Big difference. Big or not - is relative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 14:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7uf6a$3mtl3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614347 |
Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : ... > Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters > of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as > I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one > of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but > "one of the best". Big difference. Maciej still owes me a keyboard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <040f86a4-78b9-4af4-b8d2-5e33d3f3e0b0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614350 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > ... > > Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters > > of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as > > I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one > > of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but > > "one of the best". Big difference. > Maciej still owes me a keyboard. Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, to pretend that he knows something. Still insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" clause?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 14:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7ugjl$3n1gj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614351 |
Ranting senile Polish Maciej Wozniak wrote: > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : >> ... >>> Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters >>> of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as >>> I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one >>> of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but >>> "one of the best". Big difference. >> Maciej still owes me a keyboard. > > Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, > to pretend that he knows something. Still > insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function > doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" > clause? Listen, idiot: I pointed out exactly where it is stated. I'm neither providing French lessons nor logic lessons to idiots of your kind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 06:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fae41ceb-552e-4d89-a00a-cc139ec434a3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614352 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:57:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Ranting senile Polish Maciej Wozniak wrote: > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: > >> Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > >> ... > >>> Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters > >>> of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as > >>> I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one > >>> of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but > >>> "one of the best". Big difference. > >> Maciej still owes me a keyboard. > > > > Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, > > to pretend that he knows something. Still > > insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function > > doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" > > clause? > Listen, idiot: I pointed out exactly where it is stated. Listen, idiot, no you didn't. Could even find a quote where you admit that what you pointed is irrelevant. Anyway, you still do insist. See, Athel - your fellow idiot is an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 15:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7uj7k$3n913$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614353 |
Le 03/07/2023 à 15:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:57:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: >> Ranting senile Polish Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>> On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: >>>> Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : >>>> ... >>>>> Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters >>>>> of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as >>>>> I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one >>>>> of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but >>>>> "one of the best". Big difference. >>>> Maciej still owes me a keyboard. >>> >>> Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, >>> to pretend that he knows something. Still >>> insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function >>> doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" >>> clause? >> Listen, idiot: I pointed out exactly where it is stated. > > Listen, idiot, no you didn't. Could even find > a quote where you admit that what you pointed > is irrelevant. Maciej is there a single subject in the world that you are not confused about?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c492926-6c88-4da1-9629-be21f19ffd0fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614354 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 15:42:15 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Le 03/07/2023 à 15:08, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > > On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:57:28 UTC+2, Python wrote: > >> Ranting senile Polish Maciej Wozniak wrote: > >>> On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 14:33:19 UTC+2, Python wrote: > >>>> Le 03/07/2023 à 13:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit : > >>>> ... > >>>>> Very helpful. But no matter, I've immersed my hands in the murky waters > >>>>> of Google Groups, and find that your claim was not quite as grandiose as > >>>>> I thought I remembered. On 22nd March you wrote: "See, Python - I'm one > >>>>> of the best logicians the humanity ever had". Not "the greatest" but > >>>>> "one of the best". Big difference. > >>>> Maciej still owes me a keyboard. > >>> > >>> Oh, stinker Python is opening his muzzle again, > >>> to pretend that he knows something. Still > >>> insisting that Bourbaki's definition of function > >>> doesn't have "for all elements of the domain" > >>> clause? > >> Listen, idiot: I pointed out exactly where it is stated. > > > > Listen, idiot, no you didn't. Could even find > > a quote where you admit that what you pointed > > is irrelevant. > Maciej is there a single subject in the world that you are > not confused about? I wonder whether your fellow idiot Athel will be stupid enough to support your not confused concept of function. Well, Athel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jLh6cWUVJk2yBqvGbWdYKqPBqsQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #614355 |
Le 03/07/2023 à 15:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> Maciej is there a single subject in the world that you are >> not confused about? > > I wonder whether your fellow idiot Athel will > be stupid enough to support your not confused > concept of function. > Well, Athel? Python has cognition issues I think. But he is not responsible for it. He's not even responsible for refusing to give me oral sex as a reward for my scientific contribution to RR. In fact, he doesn't believe it at all. He is so indoctrinated by his relativistic sect that he is unable to understand that there is a "little" problem. It is a matter of faith, almost of religion. He firmly believes that I am the wicked Antichrist foreseen in the Holy Scriptures, because I demonstrated by A+B that the relativistic apparent velocities become absurd without going through Hachel geometry. The only one valid in real SR. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u7v2u6$3ostk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #614356 |
Le 03/07/2023 à 17:21, M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand a écrit : > Le 03/07/2023 à 15:53, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > [snip gna gna gna] tic tac tic tac tic tac
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 13:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kggiljF88a7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #614339 |
On 7/3/2023 2:55 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > >> On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: >>> On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He >>> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> >>> > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. >>> Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on> >>> Physics to explaining relativity. >> >> Did he also explain why it is inconsistent? > > Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? That's what happens when someone attends book stores and does their reading of books that get sold before the reader has a chance to finish them. A partial education is far worse than none at all because that's how a "know it all" arrives at that impossible situation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 12:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4322bb1-a6a7-4246-8d74-216f4272de9cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614376 |
On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 20:34:30 UTC+2, whodat wrote: > On 7/3/2023 2:55 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-03 07:26:21 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said: > > > >> On Monday, 3 July 2023 at 09:22:09 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > >>> On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said:>> > He > >>> firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means> > >>> > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > >>> Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on> > >>> Physics to explaining relativity. > >> > >> Did he also explain why it is inconsistent? > > > > Ah. So you've not actually read Feynman's books. Who can be surprised? > That's what happens when someone attends book stores and does their That's what happens when an angry relativistic doggie is feeling the urge to bark.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3120895-b946-49f9-8b46-7e029a047be0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614336 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:22:09 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on > Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he > believed what the crackpots say? > > -- > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots He had an honest moment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-07-03 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8896d9fe-9b7c-4251-9de2-baa4e31d2580n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #614368 |
On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 11:17:07 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 12:22:09 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: > > On 2023-07-02 23:46:49 +0000, Laurence Clark Crossen said: > > > > > He firmly asserted that light always behaves as a particle. That means > > > its velocity is not independent of that of the source. > > Feynman devoted three chapters (15–17) of volume 1 of Lectures on > > Physics to explaining relativity. Why do you suppose he did that if he > > believed what the crackpots say? > > > > -- > > athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots > He had an honest moment. He explained that light does not behave according to the second postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web