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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #379678 > unrolled thread

False Founding Principles in Physics

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

Contents

  False Founding Principles in Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-21 03:05 -0700
    Re: False Founding Principles in Physics bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:41 +0000
      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 13:56 -0700
        Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Andrzej Przemysław <andrzejp@hotmailforyou.org> - 2016-03-27 19:07 +0000
          Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:46 -0700
            Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 13:36 +0000
              Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:19 -0700
                Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 18:38 +0000
    Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 09:18 -0700
      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 12:35 -0700
        Re: False Founding Principles in Physics bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-23 19:39 +0000
      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:48 -0700
        Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 14:22 +0000
          Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:23 -0700
            Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 19:25 +0000
              Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:09 -0700
                Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Ewan <iq49j@noemail.edu> - 2016-03-28 22:07 +0000
                  Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:34 -0700
                    Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-03-30 16:01 +0000
                      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:29 +0200
                      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:25 -0700
                    Re: False Founding Principles in Physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 12:06 -0700
                      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-03-31 16:35 +0000
                      Re: False Founding Principles in Physics Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-03-31 16:37 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#379678 — False Founding Principles in Physics

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/perimeter-institute-and-the-crisis-in-modern-physics/ 
 Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all." 

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857 
 Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles." 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-ultimate-simplicity-of-everything-1.3490322 
 Neil Turok: "It looks like the founding principles of modern physics - quantum theory and relativity - have played out and they have not given us the answers we need. And so we have to go back and question those founding principles..."

Suggesting that the founding principles of physics are false without singling out any of them is an old tradition in Einstein schizophrenic world. Einstein himself was somewhat more honest when, in 1954, he did refer to the false principle, even though in confusing terms:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf 
 Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." 

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false constancy of the speed of light as defined in the ether field theory: 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf 
 "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ 
 "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." 

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC 
 Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 
 Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

It is extremely easy to show that the speed of light cannot be constant - it varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity: 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf 
 David Tong: "The rocket has height h. It starts from rest, and moves with constant acceleration g. Light emitted from the top of the rocket is received below. By this time, the rocket is travelling at speed v=gt=gh/c. This gives rise to the Doppler effect. (Neglecting relativistic effects). f'=f(1+v/c)=f(1+gh/c^2), where f' is received frequency and f is emitted frequency." 

Since f=c/λ (λ is the wavelength), we have 

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ 

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light relative to the receiver (the bottom of the rocket). 

Clearly the speed of light relative to the observer (receiver) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) proves, explicitly or implicitly, this variation: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE 
 "Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/summer2011/session1/physics2c/Waves.pdf 
 "Doppler effect (...) Let u be speed of source or observer (...) Doppler Shift: Moving Observer. Shift in frequency only, wavelength does not change. Speed observed = v+u (...) Observed frequency shift f'=f(1±u/v)" 

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html 
 "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength (...) but a different frequency (...) to that seen by the stationary observer." 

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php 
 "vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." 

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html 
 "Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ." 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#379700

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-
b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
>  Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
>  cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
>  structures.
>  Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
>  theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
>  physics."

He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking was 
clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well dressed and 
unvaccinated. Take a look at the happy healthy people in this vid. All of 
them, all of the time.

Berlin 1900 - HD in Color
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1IGNLg-RSU

If anyone still has doubts in that the Evolution is wrong, here you have 
another proof.

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

#379979

On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:41:48 AM UTC-7, bear making dust wrote:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-
> b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> >  Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> >  cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> >  structures.
> >  Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> >  theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> >  physics."
> 
> He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking was 
> clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well dressed and 
> unvaccinated.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Another stupidity. Will this veritable waterfall of idiocies ever end?

--
Jan

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

#380280

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:41:48 AM UTC-7, bear making dust wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> 
>> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-
>> b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
>> >  Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that
>> >  physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on
>> >  continuous structures.
>> >  Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including
>> >  the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
>> >  contemporary physics."
>> 
>> He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking was
>> clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well dressed and
>> unvaccinated.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Another stupidity. Will this veritable waterfall of idiocies ever end?

Yours seemingly, won't.

Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCU2DfMBpU

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

#380281

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 12:07:18 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Przemysław wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:41:48 AM UTC-7, bear making dust wrote:
> >> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> 
> >> > http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-
> >> b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
> >> >  Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that
> >> >  physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on
> >> >  continuous structures.
> >> >  Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including
> >> >  the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> >> >  contemporary physics."
> >> 
> >> He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking was
> >> clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well dressed and
> >> unvaccinated.
> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Another stupidity. Will this veritable waterfall of idiocies ever end?
> 
> Yours seemingly, won't.
> 
> Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCU2DfMBpU

This is pure nonsense started by some idiot whose paper somehow got published,
then retracted due to its shoddy work and lies. This is the sum total of this entire
so-called "movement". It's just like UFO abductions: a sort of mental INFECTION
or EPIDEMIC starts going around and one cannot even foresee the end of this insanity.

Pa-the-tic.

--
Jan

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

#380322

JanPB wrote:

>> >> He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking
>> >> was clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well
>> >> dressed and unvaccinated.
>> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > Another stupidity. Will this veritable waterfall of idiocies ever
>> > end?
>> 
>> Yours seemingly, won't.
>> Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCU2DfMBpU
> 
> This is pure nonsense started by some idiot whose paper somehow got
> published,
> then retracted due to its shoddy work and lies. This is the sum total of
> this entire so-called "movement". It's just like UFO abductions: a sort
> of mental INFECTION or EPIDEMIC starts going around and one cannot even
> foresee the end of this insanity. Pa-the-tic. -- Jan

You are indeed a hard nut to crack. Can't you just follow that correlation 
graph, what, you need a paper?? Do you think those kids are faking it like 
a moon lander. Try this then, sheep. "scientific fraud"

VAXXED producer Del Bigtree UNCUT full interview with ABC World News 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcdh7KlgPI

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

#380352

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 6:36:21 AM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> He was perfectly right, at that time, as he is today. His thinking
> >> >> was clear, ate healthy food, inhaled fresh air. Elegantly well
> >> >> dressed and unvaccinated.
> >> >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > Another stupidity. Will this veritable waterfall of idiocies ever
> >> > end?
> >> 
> >> Yours seemingly, won't.
> >> Vaxxed From Cover Up to Catastrophe TRAILER
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdCU2DfMBpU
> > 
> > This is pure nonsense started by some idiot whose paper somehow got
> > published,
> > then retracted due to its shoddy work and lies. This is the sum total of
> > this entire so-called "movement". It's just like UFO abductions: a sort
> > of mental INFECTION or EPIDEMIC starts going around and one cannot even
> > foresee the end of this insanity. Pa-the-tic. -- Jan
> 
> You are indeed a hard nut to crack. Can't you just follow that correlation 
> graph, what, you need a paper??

The whole thing is shoddy "research", lies, and incompetence by amateurs who 
have no clue. Like most people on this forum, they assume that "good intentions"
and reading a book are a substitute for years of full-time hard work studying 
the given field.

Notice how this newsgroup attracts people who so easily believe in most 
ridiculous ideas: Apollo "fake landings", relativity is "wrong", now
this anti-vaccine idiocy.

It clearly has to do with people's mental state, not with any science
or - God forbid - facts.

--
Jan

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

#380356

JanPB wrote:

>> > This is pure nonsense started by some idiot whose paper somehow got
>> > published,
>> > then retracted due to its shoddy work and lies. This is the sum total
>> > of this entire so-called "movement". It's just like UFO abductions: a
>> > sort of mental INFECTION or EPIDEMIC starts going around and one
>> > cannot even foresee the end of this insanity. Pa-the-tic. -- Jan
>> 
>> You are indeed a hard nut to crack. Can't you just follow that
>> correlation graph, what, you need a paper??
> 
> The whole thing is shoddy "research", lies, and incompetence by amateurs
> who have no clue. Like most people on this forum, they assume that "good
> intentions"
> and reading a book are a substitute for years of full-time hard work
> studying the given field.

FOLLOW THE CORRELATION GRAPH, you incoherent maniac. The kids are not 
faking it. Pharma is making big money on that vaccine crap. 

You even know what a vaccine is all about?? I look indistinguishably from 
a complete failure. Woźniak is correct so very much.

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

#379935

It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:

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

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

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

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

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160323006022/en/Slowing-Light-Twist 
 "Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

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

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

Einsteinians react to inconstant speed of light observations:

http://resetvenezia.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/head-in-sand-300x201.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#379968

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 10:18:55 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:
> 
> http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ 
>  "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now
> the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free
> space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously
> that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted
> figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or
> vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press
> release." 

Which, of ourse, has nothing whatever to do with Pentcho's false assertion
that the speed of light is affrected by the motion of its source.  Pentcho
can't tell an apples from an orange.

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

#379969

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Pentcho can't tell an apples from an orange.

You must be a slabovian, not a proud american.

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

#380282

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:

Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting for, sitting wasting time
at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria? I understand Stockholm doesn't have
the weather as good but it's worth a write-up of your genius results and a short trip to
the colder climes.

--
Jan

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

#380330

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:
> 
> Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting for,
> sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria? I
> understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's worth a
> write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the colder climes.

Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration camps 
before the Germans overtook the territory, right?

EU for U: Ukrainian migrants struggle to find work in Europe 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyOQYGjRW-8

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

#380353

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:22:43 AM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:
> > 
> > Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting for,
> > sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria? I
> > understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's worth a
> > write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the colder climes.
> 
> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration camps 
> before the Germans overtook the territory, right?

Wrong.

(This newsgroup is 95% idiocies, on any given subject.)

--
Jan

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

#380361

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:22:43 AM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev
>> > wrote:
>> >> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:
>> > 
>> > Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting
>> > for,
>> > sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria? I
>> > understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's worth
>> > a write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the colder
>> > climes.
>> 
>> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration camps
>> before the Germans overtook the territory, right?
> 
> Wrong.

Historian Parenti alludes otherwise

Michael Parenti, Contrary Nations, page 364
"..,  but the Soviets reoccupied only the land that had been taken from 
them by the Polish dictatorship in 1921 .."

> (This newsgroup is 95% idiocies, on any given subject.)

So true. I am talking to a one right now.

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

#380373

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:22:43 AM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 9:18:55 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> It is experimentally proved that the speed of light is not constant:
> >> > 
> >> > Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting
> >> > for,
> >> > sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria? I
> >> > understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's worth
> >> > a write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the colder
> >> > climes.
> >> 
> >> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration camps
> >> before the Germans overtook the territory, right?
> > 
> > Wrong.
> 
> Historian Parenti alludes otherwise
> 
> Michael Parenti, Contrary Nations, page 364
> "..,  but the Soviets reoccupied only the land that had been taken from 
> them by the Polish dictatorship in 1921 .."

Hahahaha! Priceless. I strongly recommend reading real history books.

> > (This newsgroup is 95% idiocies, on any given subject.)
> 
> So true. I am talking to a one right now.

I rest my case.

--
Jan
--
Jan

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

#380381

JanPB wrote:

>> >> > Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting
>> >> > for,
>> >> > sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria?
>> >> > I understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's
>> >> > worth a write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the
>> >> > colder climes.
>> >> 
>> >> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration
>> >> camps before the Germans overtook the territory, right?
>> > 
>> > Wrong.
>> 
>> Historian Parenti alludes otherwise
>> 
>> Michael Parenti, Contrary Nations, page 364 "..,  but the Soviets
>> reoccupied only the land that had been taken from them by the Polish
>> dictatorship in 1921 .."
> 
> Hahahaha! Priceless. I strongly recommend reading real history books.

What's a "real history" book? Nevermind, you are laughing uncontrollably, 
and I'm not so much a doctor Freud as you are, but you just said you wish 
the death of questioning posters, as they are idiots. I must ask, are you 
okay otherwise?

Parenti is a history professor, author of about 30 books translated in 
many languages. Gives talks in universities around the world, about 
various empires along the time lime, etc. What qualifies you, apparently a 
paid troll, to repudiate that?

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

#380396

On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 3:07:48 PM UTC-7, Ewan wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> > Why don't you collect your Nobel prize then? What are you waiting
> >> >> > for,
> >> >> > sitting wasting time at a computer keyboard somewhere in Bulgaria?
> >> >> > I understand Stockholm doesn't have the weather as good but it's
> >> >> > worth a write-up of your genius results and a short trip to the
> >> >> > colder climes.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration
> >> >> camps before the Germans overtook the territory, right?
> >> > 
> >> > Wrong.
> >> 
> >> Historian Parenti alludes otherwise
> >> 
> >> Michael Parenti, Contrary Nations, page 364 "..,  but the Soviets
> >> reoccupied only the land that had been taken from them by the Polish
> >> dictatorship in 1921 .."
> > 
> > Hahahaha! Priceless. I strongly recommend reading real history books.
> 
> What's a "real history" book? Nevermind, you are laughing uncontrollably, 
> and I'm not so much a doctor Freud as you are, but you just said you wish 
> the death of questioning posters, as they are idiots. I must ask, are you 
> okay otherwise?
> 
> Parenti is a history professor, author of about 30 books translated in 
> many languages. Gives talks in universities around the world, about 
> various empires along the time lime, etc. What qualifies you, apparently a 
> paid troll, to repudiate that?

Get a life. I don't know who Michael Parenti is. If he writes that there
were "concentration camps before the Germans overtook the territory" and
that "the Soviets reoccupied only the land that had been taken from them
by the Polish dictatorship in 1921" then he is a moron who cannot afford
being confused by facts.

It's also possible that he is all right but you misunderstood him. Judging
by your posts here I'm leaning toward the latter. Sorry. Since I grew up in 
Warsaw and I'm at least 6th generation Warsaw-born, there is nothing that any 
American can tell me on this particular subject.

--
Jan

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

#380497

JanPB wrote:

>> >> >> Nevermind Bulgaria. It's about Warshava. They had concentration
>> >> >> camps before the Germans overtook the territory, right?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Wrong.
>> >> 
>> >> Historian Parenti alludes otherwise
>> >> 
>> >> Michael Parenti, Contrary Nations, page 364 "..,  but the Soviets
>> >> reoccupied only the land that had been taken from them by the Polish
>> >> dictatorship in 1921 .."
>> > 
>> > Hahahaha! Priceless. I strongly recommend reading real history books.
>> 
>> What's a "real history" book? Nevermind, you are laughing
>> uncontrollably, and I'm not so much a doctor Freud as you are, but you
>> just said you wish the death of questioning posters, as they are
>> idiots.
>> I must ask, are you okay otherwise?
>> 
>> Parenti is a history professor, author of about 30 books translated in
>> many languages. Gives talks in universities around the world, about
>> various empires along the time lime, etc. What qualifies you,
>> apparently a paid troll, to repudiate that?
> 
> Get a life. I don't know who Michael Parenti is. If he writes that there
> were "concentration camps before the Germans overtook the territory" and
> that "the Soviets reoccupied only the land that had been taken from them
> by the Polish dictatorship in 1921" then he is a moron who cannot afford
> being confused by facts.
> 
> It's also possible that he is all right but you misunderstood him.
> Judging by your posts here I'm leaning toward the latter. Sorry. Since I
> grew up in Warsaw and I'm at least 6th generation Warsaw-born, there is
> nothing

The kind of stupidity you exhibit cannot possibly occur naturally.
Parenti is pretty much correct. The entire Europe was more or less 
fascist "democracies" at that time. Just shut up and learn. Then talk.

European commission concerned about curbs imposed on Poland’s highest 
court and state media by newly elected PiS-led nationalist government
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/ec-to-investigate-polish-governments-controversial-new-laws

As Poland Lurches to Right, Many in Europe Look On in Alarm
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/world/europe/poland-law-and-justice-party-jaroslaw-kaczynski.html?_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements

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

#380503

On 30.03.2016 18:01, Bimpy wrote:
 > []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web