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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369771 > unrolled thread

EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD

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

Contents

  EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 02:34 -0800
    Re: PENTCHO'S UNDERSTANDING OF EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 05:03 -0800
    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-12 05:43 -0800
      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 12:08 -0800
        Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-12 23:29 -0800
          Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 02:55 -0800
            Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-13 03:45 -0800
          Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 13:33 -0800
            Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-14 23:17 +0100
              Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:50 -0800
                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 08:56 +0100
                  Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 00:17 -0800
                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 10:13 +0100
                      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 02:05 -0800
                        Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 11:07 +0100
                          Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 02:15 -0800
                            Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 13:48 +0100
                              Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-15 08:35 -0500
                                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 14:49 +0100
                              Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 09:48 -0800
                                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-15 21:38 +0100
                                  Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 15:44 -0800
                                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-15 23:02 -0800
                                      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 00:58 -0800
                                        Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 01:52 -0800
                                          Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 17:54 -0800
                                            Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-16 23:21 -0800
                                              Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 23:48 -0800
                                                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-17 02:34 -0800
                                                  Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-17 13:24 -0800
                                                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-17 22:56 -0800
                                                      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 00:06 -0800
                                                        Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-18 01:50 -0800
                                                          Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 13:35 -0800
                                                            Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-18 23:10 -0800
                                                              Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 11:19 -0800
                                                                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-19 20:30 +0100
                                                                  Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:30 -0800
                                                                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-19 22:00 +0100
                                                                Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 20:09 +0000
                                                                  Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 12:28 -0800
                                                                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-11-19 21:31 +0100
                                                                      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 14:13 -0800
                                                                    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-19 21:37 +0000
    Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 07:17 -0800
      Re: PENTCHO VALEV IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 07:55 -0800
      Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-18 04:11 -0800
        Re: EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-11-18 13:35 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#369771 — EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD

The deflection of light by massive objects implies that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity INCREASES. According to the Newtonian theory, it increases like the the speed of ordinary falling bodies - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g. In Einstein's general relativity, the deflection is twice that predicted by the Newtonian theory, which implies that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity increases twice as fast as in the Newtonian theory - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is 2g: 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf 
 Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter." 

Actually Einstein's general relativity predicts that the speed of falling light DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g: 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm 
 "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." 

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm 
 "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." 

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm 
 "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#369778 — Re: PENTCHO'S UNDERSTANDING OF EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY IS OBVIOUSLY ABSURD

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 3:34:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The deflection of light by massive objects implies that the speed of light
> falling towards the source of gravity INCREASES.

Only according to Newtonian theory, but not according to relativity.

> According to the Newtonian theory, it increases like the the speed of
> ordinary falling bodies - in the gravitational field of the Earth the
> acceleration of falling photons is g.

Yes, so Pentcho was being dishonest when he put his first sentence
before the reference to Newton.
 
> In Einstein's general relativity, the deflection is twice that predicted
> by the Newtonian theory, which implies that the speed of light falling
> towards the source of gravity increases twice as fast as in the Newtonian
> theory - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of
> falling photons is 2g:

Prevaricating Pentcho is conflating two different scenarios:  "deflection"
and "falling."

> http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf 
>  Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that
> predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with
> twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter." 

Puerile Pentcho perfidiously prefers to ignore the phrase, "in this sense"

> Actually Einstein's general relativity predicts that the speed of falling
> light DECREASES

This is what the Schwarzschild metric predicts AS VIEWED BY A DISTANT
OBSERVER.  A local observer would see no change in speed.  Preposterous
Pentcho prevaricates perpetually.

> - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration
> of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g: 

> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm 
>  "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases
> as the black hole is approached." 

This, of course, is from the viewpoint of a distant observer.  When light
passes a large gravitating body, there is a delay in the reception of the
light.  It's called Shapiro delay.  This experiment has been performed
many times, is in agreement with GR and refutes Newtonian theory:

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/

"Shapiro lowered the imprecision of his initial measurements from over 3%
to less than 1% in subsequent years. Newer versions of this experiment work
with transponders on space probes. These receive the signal from the earth
and after a precisely known delay send it with increased intensity back to
earth. Thus with the Viking Mars probe of 1979 the predictions of the GTR
for this delay in the gravitational field of the sun could be confirmed to
an accuracy of 0.1%. In 2003, with the space probe Cassini an accuracy of
0.0012% was achieved!"

So the absurdity here is Petulant Pentcho's preposterous poppycock.

Gary

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

#369779

W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> The deflection of light by massive objects implies that

According to The Shit there is no deflection, 
light trajectories are straight/geodesic.

However, a relativist, though an obvious
moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
axioms seriously. So, light is still 
deflected for him.

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

#369820

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:43:14 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> > The deflection of light by massive objects implies that
> 
> According to The Shit there is no deflection, 
> light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> 
> However, a relativist, though an obvious
> moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> axioms seriously. So, light is still 
> deflected for him.

I recommend ignoring Maciej's posts. Virtually all of them are incorrect
(if they have a content in the first place). His language also tells the
reader all there is to know about where he is coming from.

In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.

--
Jan

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

#369869

W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:43:14 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> > > The deflection of light by massive objects implies that
> > 
> > According to The Shit there is no deflection, 
> > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > 
> > However, a relativist, though an obvious
> > moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> > axioms seriously. So, light is still 
> > deflected for him.
> 
> In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.

A common mistake between relativistic morons,
but I'm not.
And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
A link to enlighten you.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html

Quoting:
"Now, we known that light always takes the shortest 
path between two points, "
i.e.geodesic. 

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

#369870

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:29:16 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB 
> > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
> 
> A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> but I'm not.
> And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> A link to enlighten you.
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
> 
> Quoting:
> "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest 
> path between two points, "
> i.e.geodesic.

Wow, the Polish Software Programmer at his best, showing the world his outstanding knowledge of Relativity and Information Theory.

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

#369871

W dniu piątek, 13 listopada 2015 11:55:19 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał:
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 4:29:16 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB 
> > > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
> > 
> > A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> > but I'm not.
> > And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> > lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> > A link to enlighten you.
> > http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
> > 
> > Quoting:
> > "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest 
> > path between two points, "
> > i.e.geodesic.
> 
> Wow, the Polish Software Programmer at his best, showing the world his outstanding knowledge of Relativity and Information Theory.

Wow, relativistic moron at hist best,
yelling with no sense.

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

#370059

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:29:16 PM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 21:09:02 UTC+1 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 5:43:14 AM UTC-8, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 12 listopada 2015 11:34:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Pentcho Valev napisał:
> > > > The deflection of light by massive objects implies that
> > > 
> > > According to The Shit there is no deflection, 
> > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > > 
> > > However, a relativist, though an obvious
> > > moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> > > axioms seriously. So, light is still 
> > > deflected for him.
> > 
> > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
> 
> A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> but I'm not.
> And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> A link to enlighten you.
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
> 
> Quoting:
> "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest 
> path between two points, "
> i.e.geodesic.

Another of Maciej's tactic (which is standard among cranks) is never to answer the 
contradiction they've been shown committing.

The original claim:
> > > According to The Shit there is no deflection, 
> > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
...is incorrect. It shows confusion between space and spacetime (there is probably much
more confusion there too).

The rest of his post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook:
> > > 
> > > However, a relativist, though an obvious
> > > moron, is not stupid enough to treat his
> > > axioms seriously. So, light is still 
> > > deflected for him.

--
Jan

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

#370064

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ddd45c5e-466c-4a09-bc40-662c7d346af5@googlegroups.com...


> > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
>
> A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> but I'm not.
> And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> A link to enlighten you.
> http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
>
> Quoting:
> "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest
> path between two points, "
> i.e.geodesic.

|Another of Maciej's tactic (which is standard among cranks) is never to 
answer the
|contradiction they've been shown committing.

Another of Jan's tactic (which is standard amongs relativistic
morons) is always lie.

> The original claim:
> > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.

|...is incorrect.

No, it is not.


|It shows confusion between space and spacetime

No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.

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

#370078

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 2:17:15 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ddd45c5e-466c-4a09-bc40-662c7d346af5@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> > > In this case, he is confusing space with spacetime.
> >
> > A common mistake between relativistic morons,
> > but I'm not.
> > And you, as usual, are trying to cover your
> > lack of basic knowledge with empty yellings.
> > A link to enlighten you.
> > http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_curved.html
> >
> > Quoting:
> > "Now, we known that light always takes the shortest
> > path between two points, "
> > i.e.geodesic.
> 
> |Another of Maciej's tactic (which is standard among cranks) is never to 
> answer the
> |contradiction they've been shown committing.
> 
> Another of Jan's tactic (which is standard amongs relativistic
> morons) is always lie.
> 
> > The original claim:
> > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> 
> |...is incorrect.
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> 
> |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> 
> No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.

Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as this NG amply
demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and then present
those as an "answer" of sorts.

Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat denials and nothing
about his first, incorrect, claim.

The absolute master of it was a certain Dennis, in the latter part of the 20th century here
as he was extremely good at _very gradual_ topic change as the thread progressed
so unless one was _extremely_ careful about the mere writing style and his wording,
he'd make a huge issue out of it. Maciej is nowhere near that league but he does
try to switch uncomfortable topics. His problem is that he is unable to leave a thread,
he must always have the last word. If I chose to keep replying to this thread, it would
extend indefinitely.

--
Jan

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

#370086

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...


> > The original claim:
> > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
>
> |...is incorrect.
>
> No, it is not.
>
>
> |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
>
> No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.

|Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as this 
NG amply
|demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and 
then present
|those as an "answer" of sorts.
|Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat 
denials and nothing
|about his first, incorrect, claim.


Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
"incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?

And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
with posts here without it. 

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

#370089

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> 
> 
> > > The original claim:
> > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> >
> > |...is incorrect.
> >
> > No, it is not.
> >
> >
> > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> >
> > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> 
> |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as this 
> NG amply
> |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and 
> then present
> |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat 
> denials and nothing
> |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> 
> 
> Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> 
> And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> with posts here without it.

A.

--
Jan

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

#370091

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > > The original claim:
> > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> >
> > |...is incorrect.
> >
> > No, it is not.
> >
> >
> > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> >
> > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
>
> |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as 
> this
> NG amply
> |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and
> then present
> |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> denials and nothing
> |about his first, incorrect, claim.
>
>
> Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
>
> And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> with posts here without it.

|A.

Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
moron.

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

#370094

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > > > The original claim:
> > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > >
> > > |...is incorrect.
> > >
> > > No, it is not.
> > >
> > >
> > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> > >
> > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> >
> > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as 
> > this
> > NG amply
> > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims and
> > then present
> > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> > denials and nothing
> > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> >
> >
> > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> >
> > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> > with posts here without it.
> 
> |A.
> 
> Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> moron.

B.

--
Jan

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

#370095

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > > > The original claim:
> > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > >
> > > |...is incorrect.
> > >
> > > No, it is not.
> > >
> > >
> > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> > >
> > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> >
> > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as
> > this
> > NG amply
> > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims 
> > and
> > then present
> > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> > denials and nothing
> > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> >
> >
> > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> >
> > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> > with posts here without it.
>
> |A.
>
> Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> moron.

|B.

And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
moron.

--
Jan 

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

#370096

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The original claim:
> > > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > > >
> > > > |...is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> > > >
> > > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> > >
> > > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general as
> > > this
> > > NG amply
> > > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims 
> > > and
> > > then present
> > > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> > > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> > > denials and nothing
> > > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> > >
> > >
> > > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> > > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> > > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> > > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> > > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> > > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> > > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> > > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> > > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> > >
> > > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> > > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> > > with posts here without it.
> >
> > |A.
> >
> > Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> > moron.
> 
> |B.
> 
> And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> moron.
> 
> --
> Jan

C. (I think we are onto something.)

--
Jan

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

#370099

Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6-951f-7551c9022b69@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...
>
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak 
> > wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The original claim:
> > > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > > >
> > > > |...is incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > No, it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> > > >
> > > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> > >
> > > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general 
> > > as
> > > this
> > > NG amply
> > > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims
> > > and
> > > then present
> > > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> > > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> > > denials and nothing
> > > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> > >
> > >
> > > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> > > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> > > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> > > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> > > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> > > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> > > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> > > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> > > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> > >
> > > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> > > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> > > with posts here without it.
> >
> > |A.
> >
> > Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> > moron.
>
> |B.
>
> And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> moron.
>
> --
> Jan

|C. (I think we are onto something.)

And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
gave him his incredible wisdom.

--
Jan 

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

#370101

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:48:45 +0100, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup 
>dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6-951f-7551c9022b69@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak 
>> > wrote:
>> > > Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> > > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > The original claim:
>> > > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
>> > > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
>> > > >
>> > > > |...is incorrect.
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it is not.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
>> > > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
>> > >
>> > > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general 
>> > > as
>> > > this
>> > > NG amply
>> > > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims
>> > > and
>> > > then present
>> > > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
>> > > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
>> > > denials and nothing
>> > > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
>> > > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
>> > > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
>> > > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
>> > > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
>> > > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
>> > > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
>> > > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
>> > > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
>> > >
>> > > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
>> > > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
>> > > with posts here without it.
>> >
>> > |A.
>> >
>> > Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
>> > moron.
>>
>> |B.
>>
>> And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
>> moron.
>>
>
>And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
>gave him his incredible wisdom.

        Will everybody please stop replying
to this hostile depraved creep!

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

#370103

Użytkownik "kefischer"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:ld2h4b9sdn3mvobvpka914ie3v18ngd93k@4ax.com...

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 13:48:45 +0100, Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
wrote:

>Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6-951f-7551c9022b69@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> > Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak
>> > wrote:
>> > > Uzytkownik "JanPB"  napisal w wiadomosci grup
>> > > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > The original claim:
>> > > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
>> > > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
>> > > >
>> > > > |...is incorrect.
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it is not.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
>> > > >
>> > > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
>> > > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac 
>> > > > gobbledygook.
>> > >
>> > > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general
>> > > as
>> > > this
>> > > NG amply
>> > > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their 
>> > > claims
>> > > and
>> > > then present
>> > > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
>> > > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
>> > > denials and nothing
>> > > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
>> > > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
>> > > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
>> > > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
>> > > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
>> > > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
>> > > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
>> > > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
>> > > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
>> > >
>> > > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
>> > > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
>> > > with posts here without it.
>> >
>> > |A.
>> >
>> > Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
>> > moron.
>>
>> |B.
>>
>> And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
>> moron.
>>
>
>And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
>gave him his incredible wisdom.

|        Will everybody please stop replying
|to this hostile depraved creep!

Is A,B,C - replying for you?
Poor idiot.

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

#370119

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 4:48:46 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:ddd69259-e17c-41d6-951f-7551c9022b69@googlegroups.com...
> 
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:07:38 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:0f679c8e-2f71-46e3-ba51-ffd73015746d@googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:13:41 AM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > dyskusyjnych:605463a2-5623-4b57-af65-517e292c25cb@googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM UTC-8, Maciej Woźniak 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Użytkownik "JanPB"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > dyskusyjnych:1adebf3f-affc-4079-a873-24cb49203b32@googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The original claim:
> > > > > > > > According to The Shit there is no deflection,
> > > > > > > > light trajectories are straight/geodesic.
> > > > >
> > > > > |...is incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > |It shows confusion between space and spacetime
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it does not. And you're a stupid, lying shit.
> > > > > The rest of your post is the usual obsessed monomaniac gobbledygook.
> > > >
> > > > |Another of Maciej's trait (it's also common among cranks in general 
> > > > as
> > > > this
> > > > NG amply
> > > > |demonstrates) is to copy selections from the response to their claims
> > > > and
> > > > then present
> > > > |those as an "answer" of sorts.
> > > > |Note the lack of any content in his latest post otherwise, just flat
> > > > denials and nothing
> > > > |about his first, incorrect, claim.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Note the lack of ANY arguments, just flat denials and repeating
> > > > "incorrect" spell. As expected from a relativistic moron.
> > > > No, it's not incorrect, trajectories of light in space (don't
> > > > confuse with spacetime) are, according to The Shit
> > > > geodesics/straight lines, relativists, though obvious morons,
> > > > are not stupid enough to treat the axioms of their Shit
> > > > seriously and you are stupid, lying shit, without basic
> > > > knowledge. And if you have another opinion, show it.
> > > > What are geodesics of space (don't confuse with spacetime)?
> > > >
> > > > And, about cuttinng selections, poor idiot, you're right, is common
> > > > here, both among  "cranks" and all others; it's impossible to deal
> > > > with posts here without it.
> > >
> > > |A.
> > >
> > > Mortals, praise the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> > > moron.
> >
> > |B.
> >
> > And bow before the incredible wisdom of a relativistic
> > moron.
> >
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> |C. (I think we are onto something.)
> 
> And praise The Shit, that created relativistic moron and
> gave him his incredible wisdom.
> 
> --
> Jan

D.

--
Jan

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web