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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360038 > unrolled thread

H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity?

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

Contents

  H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 18:56 +0000
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:59 -0500
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 19:16 +0000
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 19:55 +0000
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-19 05:03 -0400
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-09 00:45 +0000
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 20:37 -0700
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 19:02 +0000
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:03 -0500
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-08 19:06 +0000
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 22:09 -0700
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-09 01:25 -0400
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-09 12:54 +0000
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 09:07 -0500
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2015-08-09 09:52 +0200
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-09 12:50 +0000
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-09 09:20 -0400
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Emmerich Schultheiß <emme@noemail.thx> - 2015-08-09 13:35 +0000
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2015-08-09 17:22 +0300
    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 12:14 -0700
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-10 21:31 +0200
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 12:56 -0700
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-10 22:08 +0200
            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 14:17 -0700
              Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 16:54 +0200
    H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:21 -0700
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-10 22:51 +0200
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 19:47 -0700
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-10 23:18 -0400
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 21:12 -0700
            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 21:49 -0700
            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 17:11 +0200
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 17:08 +0200
            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 10:50 -0700
              Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 20:50 +0200
                Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:06 -0700
                  Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 21:24 +0200
                  Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 21:29 +0200
                    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:41 -0700
                      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-12 16:45 +0200
                        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 10:33 -0700
                          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-12 19:46 +0200
                        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 10:57 -0700
                          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-12 21:15 +0200
                            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 12:49 -0700
                              Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-12 22:16 +0200
                                Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:28 -0700
                                  Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-13 17:01 +0200
                                    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 11:24 -0700
                                      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-14 20:52 +0200
                Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 12:31 -0700
                  Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-08-11 21:39 +0200
                  Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:27 -0500
                    Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:47 -0700
                      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:57 -0500
                      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-12 02:33 -0400
                        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:43 -0500
                          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-12 12:12 -0400
                            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 11:31 -0500
                              Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-12 14:05 -0400
                                Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 14:14 -0500
    H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:32 -0700
      Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 15:56 -0500
        Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Jon Price <jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 19:43 -0700
          Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 07:42 -0500
            Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 11:12 -0700
              Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 13:11 -0700
                Re: H. G. Wells, the father of Relativity? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 15:38 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#360248

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:9116c7d2-ea29-4f86-8a6a-00c8ff0f1ac9@googlegroups.com...

|Moreover this idea was not the paper's inspiration (the inspiration were
|the moving magnet/moving wire loop experiments in order to come up with
|providing a uniform treatment of these experiments within Maxwell's theory
|- hence the title of the paper BTW. As we now know this problem proved to
|be so fundamental that it could be fixed only by re-examining some very
|basic asumptions, including that of what we mean by "time" as a physical
|quantity).

A lie, common between relativistic morons. There are a lot of possible
solutions of the problem, first of them was Lorentz's and it was classical.

The necessarity of the Ingenious Shit has the same provenience, that
necessarity of communistic socialism: every insane ideology of the world
is trying to convince people to its necessarity, and sometimes it
succeeds. 

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

#360249

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:31:22 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:9116c7d2-ea29-4f86-8a6a-00c8ff0f1ac9@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |Moreover this idea was not the paper's inspiration (the inspiration were
> |the moving magnet/moving wire loop experiments in order to come up with
> |providing a uniform treatment of these experiments within Maxwell's theory
> |- hence the title of the paper BTW. As we now know this problem proved to
> |be so fundamental that it could be fixed only by re-examining some very
> |basic asumptions, including that of what we mean by "time" as a physical
> |quantity).
> 
> A lie, common between relativistic morons. There are a lot of possible
> solutions of the problem, first of them was Lorentz's and it was classical.
> 
> The necessarity of the Ingenious Shit has the same provenience, that
> necessarity of communistic socialism: every insane ideology of the world
> is trying to convince people to its necessarity, and sometimes it
> succeeds.

You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

--
Jan

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

#360251

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:7c7e2594-6672-4cc6-b989-e5536e19cbea@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:31:22 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:9116c7d2-ea29-4f86-8a6a-00c8ff0f1ac9@googlegroups.com...
>
> |Moreover this idea was not the paper's inspiration (the inspiration were
> |the moving magnet/moving wire loop experiments in order to come up with
> |providing a uniform treatment of these experiments within Maxwell's 
> theory
> |- hence the title of the paper BTW. As we now know this problem proved to
> |be so fundamental that it could be fixed only by re-examining some very
> |basic asumptions, including that of what we mean by "time" as a physical
> |quantity).
>
> A lie, common between relativistic morons. There are a lot of possible
> solutions of the problem, first of them was Lorentz's and it was 
> classical.
>
> The necessarity of the Ingenious Shit has the same provenience, that
> necessarity of communistic socialism: every insane ideology of the world
> is trying to convince people to its necessarity, and sometimes it
> succeeds.

|You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Oh, yes, I know. Sorry.
You can only scream and spit. A relativistic moron is
never able to do anything more.

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

#360267

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 1:08:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:7c7e2594-6672-4cc6-b989-e5536e19cbea@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 12:31:22 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:9116c7d2-ea29-4f86-8a6a-00c8ff0f1ac9@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |Moreover this idea was not the paper's inspiration (the inspiration were
> > |the moving magnet/moving wire loop experiments in order to come up with
> > |providing a uniform treatment of these experiments within Maxwell's 
> > theory
> > |- hence the title of the paper BTW. As we now know this problem proved to
> > |be so fundamental that it could be fixed only by re-examining some very
> > |basic asumptions, including that of what we mean by "time" as a physical
> > |quantity).
> >
> > A lie, common between relativistic morons. There are a lot of possible
> > solutions of the problem, first of them was Lorentz's and it was 
> > classical.
> >
> > The necessarity of the Ingenious Shit has the same provenience, that
> > necessarity of communistic socialism: every insane ideology of the world
> > is trying to convince people to its necessarity, and sometimes it
> > succeeds.
> 
> |You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
> 
> Oh, yes, I know. Sorry.
> You can only scream and spit. A relativistic moron is
> never able to do anything more.

I wrote enough here for anyone with integrity and honesty to know
what's what.

--
Jan

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

#360324

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:cee6d530-1180-45c3-9a9a-fd60a207e244@googlegroups.com...
> > The necessarity of the Ingenious Shit has the same provenience, that
> > necessarity of communistic socialism: every insane ideology of the world
> > is trying to convince people to its necessarity, and sometimes it
> > succeeds.
>
> |You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.
>
> Oh, yes, I know. Sorry.
> You can only scream and spit. A relativistic moron is
> never able to do anything more.

|I wrote enough here for anyone with integrity and honesty to know
|what's what.

A lie, common between relativistic morons.
You're neither competent enough to know, what your shit says,
nor honest enough to admit a mistake. 

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

#360254

My understanding is that you are correct that Einstein was not the first to come up with the notion that time might dilate.
However, Einstein was the first to explain that time really does dilate (depending on reference frames and motion etc...) AND by exactly how much time dilates and under what circumstances.
No?

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

#360264

Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ebb4cbe6-fdb1-41ae-bd07-5518378fc786@googlegroups.com...

|My understanding is that you are correct that Einstein was not the first to 
come up with the notion that time might dilate.
|However, Einstein was the first to explain that time really does dilate 
(depending on reference frames and motion etc...) AND by exactly how much 
time dilates and under what circumstances.
|No?

Yes. But, unfortunately, it has nothing in common with reality.
Time, as defined by Einstein (his definition of time is the only
wise thing he ever wrote about it), does not dilate. GPS shows it
clearly.

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

#360294

If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in all reference frames?
If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago? 

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

#360296

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Jon Price
<jonelwoodprice@gmail.com> wrote:

>If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in all reference frames?
>If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago? 

        It looks like you are assuming all the different 
observations and experiment results are caused
by the same phenomenon, they are not.

        Observations "from afar" involve light
distance delay, that is one case and it will
be evident at any and all relative velocities.

         Your statements above makes it seem
you are unaware that time flow is the same
everywhere in the universe.

         Elapsed time of objects moving at near
the speed of light (no objects having mass
greater than a gram or so can never be given
that much speed) will appear to be much less
than objects next to each other, because the
travel time is inordinately less at those speeds.

         There is relative motion doppler effect,
and gravitational red and blue shifts similar
to motion doppler.
        

        While the exact cause of some of the
effects are not well understood, experiments
have shown what to expect.

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

#360299

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 7:47:14 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
> If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in all reference frames?
> If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?

The fundamental problem is that we simply don't know what time and space
"are really". There is currently no concept in physics of time and space as
substances. (Strangely enough, time and space _are_ substances in standard
Western mystic traditions, sometimes they are presented there as "frozen" or
"petrified" forms of other substance not tractable by physical means. The ultimate
in this "petrification" is what's called in those traditions "The Void" which in e.g.
the 1500s was described as something impossible to imagine, dimensionless,
infinitely rigid and without extent (quoting Jakob Böhme from memory here but it's
more or less accurate). It was also sometimes described as a "wall" which is
kind of cute because the strange seeming contradiction between "without extent"
AND "a wall" is also present in a certain fashion in the Schwarzschild and Kerr
metrics as singular sets there are surfaces, not points.)

Therefore physics currently only deals with mathematical _quantitative models_
for "time" and "space". In those models the measurements you are referring to
result from certain geometric structures on an otherwise undefined continuum
(called "spacetime").

"Undefined" meaning up to the point of the mathematical definition of what
constitutes "smooth 4D Lorentzian manifold". Therein lie all the answers
to questions you've been asking. You'll also understand the limitations physics
must operate under (this is something none of the weirdos on this NG understand).

It's simply the nature of the beast that you have to study it in order to understand
it, there are no shortcuts. It's not very difficult but it demands a reasonable amount
of dedication, integrity, honesty, humility, and patience. All that boring stuff.

Find yourself a good relativity book like Rindler or Taylor & Wheeler.

--
Jan

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

#360302

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 9:12:51 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:

> The fundamental problem is that we simply don't know what time and space
> "are really".

Nonsense.  Does Jan the relativistic moron even have understood Newtonian mechanics?  <shrug>

> There is currently no concept in physics of time and space as substances.

If Jan the relativistic moron even understands Newtonian mechanics, it will have understood time and space but not as substances.  What a buffoon!  <shrug>

> (Strangely enough, time and space _are_ substances in standard Western
> mystic traditions, sometimes they are presented there as "frozen" or
> "petrified" forms of other substance not tractable by physical means.

Yeah, that is SR.  How fvcking crazsy!  The spiritual substance of SR lies in time and space.  <shrug>

> [rest of more comments from smoking too much ganja weeds snipped]

Time and space was first suggested to be a mere coordinate point by H G Wells when he wrote that science fiction about the time traveler.  A few months before Minkowski's appendix ruptured, he was the first person about to condense the Lorentz transform into a single, precise equations where the velocity relative to the two observers in the Lorentz transform vanishes.  Spacetime was born.  <shrug>

SR's antitheses such as the Voigt and Larmor's transforms all share the same equation describing spacetime.  Yet, SR's antitheses demand the very existence of the Aether.  In SR, the Aether is disguised as spacetime.  <shrug>

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

#360330

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:da51c674-fdd1-4914-a1d8-c21960085b75@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, August 10, 2015 at 7:47:14 PM UTC-7, Jon Price wrote:
> If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in 
> all reference frames?
> If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems 
> Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?

|The fundamental problem is that we simply don't know what time and space
|"are really".

Yes, the fundamental problem is, that you don't know anything about
reality. Your imagination replaced it.

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

#360329

Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:44c25115-b5a8-439a-a44a-add43f094f7f@googlegroups.com...

|If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in all 
reference frames?

Then it can't.

|If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems 
Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?


It's a matter of convention. Nothing more, nothing less.
Einstein, poor idiot, proposed a revolutionary convention
of establishing coordinate system, with local, dilating
time. When You're applying this convention, all these
relativistic miracles appear true.
When you're not applying his moronic convention, whole
this shit becomes almost worthless. And in practic,
nobbody does.
Tom Roberts doesn't too.
Problems? A problem with explaining something is a
problem of theory. Practic fucks it. 

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

#360353

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:44c25115-b5a8-439a-a44a-add43f094f7f@googlegroups.com...
> 
> |If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in all 
> reference frames?
> 
> Then it can't.
> 
> |If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems 
> Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?
> 
> 
> It's a matter of convention. Nothing more, nothing less.
> Einstein, poor idiot, proposed a revolutionary convention
> of establishing coordinate system, with local, dilating
> time. When You're applying this convention, all these
> relativistic miracles appear true.

Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.

> When you're not applying his moronic convention, whole
> this shit becomes almost worthless. And in practic,
> nobbody does.
> Tom Roberts doesn't too.
> Problems? A problem with explaining something is a
> problem of theory. Practic fucks it.

I leave it to the readers to figure out what Maciej represents.

--
Jan

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

#360364

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ceb76010-2659-4bbf-b84d-5b8d2e28d5d6@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:44c25115-b5a8-439a-a44a-add43f094f7f@googlegroups.com...
>
> |If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in 
> all
> reference frames?
>
> Then it can't.
>
> |If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems
> Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?
>
>
> It's a matter of convention. Nothing more, nothing less.
> Einstein, poor idiot, proposed a revolutionary convention
> of establishing coordinate system, with local, dilating
> time. When You're applying this convention, all these
> relativistic miracles appear true.

|Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.

Yeah. As usual. Misunderstanding! Not even wrong!
I'M A GURU, LISTEN TO ME, MORTALS!!!!!
Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.

> When you're not applying his moronic convention, whole
> this shit becomes almost worthless. And in practic,
> nobbody does.
> Tom Roberts doesn't too.
> Problems? A problem with explaining something is a
> problem of theory. Practic fucks it.

|I leave it to the readers to figure out what Maciej represents.

I've written it just for the purpose. 

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

#360365

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:50:46 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ceb76010-2659-4bbf-b84d-5b8d2e28d5d6@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:44c25115-b5a8-439a-a44a-add43f094f7f@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in 
> > all
> > reference frames?
> >
> > Then it can't.
> >
> > |If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems
> > Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?
> >
> >
> > It's a matter of convention. Nothing more, nothing less.
> > Einstein, poor idiot, proposed a revolutionary convention
> > of establishing coordinate system, with local, dilating
> > time. When You're applying this convention, all these
> > relativistic miracles appear true.
> 
> |Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.
> 
> Yeah. As usual. Misunderstanding!

Yes.

> Not even wrong!

I didn't say that. Your statement is merely wrong.

> I'M A GURU, LISTEN TO ME, MORTALS!!!!!

Whatever made you impute that? How old are you?

> Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.

I think you describe yourself and your character best in your posts.

--
Jan

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

#360366

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:00a90b01-a709-4a22-91c8-7aed048a81e7@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 11:50:46 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:ceb76010-2659-4bbf-b84d-5b8d2e28d5d6@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:09:00 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "Jon Price"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:44c25115-b5a8-439a-a44a-add43f094f7f@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > |If time does not dilate, then how can the speed of light be constant in
> > all
> > reference frames?
> >
> > Then it can't.
> >
> > |If time does not dilate, doesn't that bring us back to the problems
> > Einstein and others were trying to solve 100 or so years ago?
> >
> >
> > It's a matter of convention. Nothing more, nothing less.
> > Einstein, poor idiot, proposed a revolutionary convention
> > of establishing coordinate system, with local, dilating
> > time. When You're applying this convention, all these
> > relativistic miracles appear true.
>
> |Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.
>
> Yeah. As usual. Misunderstanding!

Yes.

> Not even wrong!

I didn't say that. Your statement is merely wrong.

> I'M A GURU, LISTEN TO ME, MORTALS!!!!!

Whatever made you impute that? How old are you?

> Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.

I think you describe yourself and your character best in your posts.

--
Jan 

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

#360367

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:00a90b01-a709-4a22-91c8-7aed048a81e7@googlegroups.com...
> |Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.
>
> Yeah. As usual. Misunderstanding!

|Yes.

Yeah. As usual.

> Not even wrong!

|I didn't say that. Your statement is merely wrong.

Yes. And you are a queen of England, too.


> I'M A GURU, LISTEN TO ME, MORTALS!!!!!

|Whatever made you impute that? How old are you?

Your attitude. I'm 45.

> Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.

|I think you describe yourself and your character best in your posts.

And I think you are a puffed, fanatic moron, pretending
an incredibly wise guru. You described yourself in your
posts too.

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

#360386

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 12:29:32 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:00a90b01-a709-4a22-91c8-7aed048a81e7@googlegroups.com...
> > |Nope. This is a common misunderstanding.
> >
> > Yeah. As usual. Misunderstanding!
> 
> |Yes.
> 
> Yeah. As usual.
> 
> > Not even wrong!
> 
> |I didn't say that. Your statement is merely wrong.
> 
> Yes. And you are a queen of England, too.
> 
> 
> > I'M A GURU, LISTEN TO ME, MORTALS!!!!!
> 
> |Whatever made you impute that? How old are you?
> 
> Your attitude. I'm 45.

Do you yell at everyone "You pretend you are a guru!" every single
time you are told you've made a mistake?

> > Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.
> 
> |I think you describe yourself and your character best in your posts.
> 
> And I think you are a puffed, fanatic moron, pretending
> an incredibly wise guru. You described yourself in your
> posts too.

I simply point out the errors you make and get the standard responses.

--
Jan

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

#360461

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:b7dcd87b-ee24-4b33-9620-b252564e24ca@googlegroups.com...

|Do you yell at everyone "You pretend you are a guru!" every single
|time you are told you've made a mistake?

No. I'm telling it to every moron telling me, quoting,
"for you I'm a guru!", however. It's not a necessary condition,
but it is surely sufficient.


> > Nothing more ever from a relativistic moron.
>
> |I think you describe yourself and your character best in your posts.
>
> And I think you are a puffed, fanatic moron, pretending
> an incredibly wise guru. You described yourself in your
> posts too.

|I simply point out the errors you make and get the standard responses.

A lie. As expected from a relativistic moron. The only error you pointed
was in my quoting from your moronic wikipedy, and you did never
tell, what exactly is errorneous in it (nothing, of course, as it was a
correct statement of your shit).
You can only yell.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web