Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380413 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 04:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-03-31 07:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-03-29 04:40 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 14:54 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-04-03 15:13 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 01:03 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-03 20:57 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 22:14 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 10:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 11:24 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 23:44 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 02:05 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 02:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 02:58 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 04:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 04:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 04:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 05:14 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 05:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 06:46 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-05 20:54 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-05 12:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 23:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 06:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-06 07:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 09:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-06 09:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 11:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 11:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 12:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 14:33 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-09 10:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 15:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-10 12:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-03 23:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-04 20:22 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-03-29 06:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 08:18 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-29 11:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 11:54 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 21:50 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 22:09 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 13:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 22:43 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-29 14:24 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 15:58 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-29 23:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 00:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 00:51 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 01:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 02:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:35 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:00 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:21 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 03:43 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 03:53 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 04:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-03-30 04:43 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 05:31 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 06:08 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:21 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:48 -0500
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:39 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:34 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:17 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:04 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:15 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 05:29 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:35 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:53 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-30 23:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:06 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:23 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 00:42 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 00:56 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 13:50 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-31 23:03 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 15:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-31 23:09 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 00:11 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-01 00:34 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 14:53 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 17:55 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 18:44 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 21:02 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 01:10 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 10:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 10:38 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:36 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-04 11:41 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 23:01 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 00:27 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-05 00:52 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 15:37 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 19:15 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 09:05 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 14:42 +0000
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 02:45 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:10 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 12:07 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-30 22:26 +0200
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-29 23:25 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-30 10:30 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-30 10:48 -0700
Re: Inescapable (symmetric) twins paradox alsor@interia.pl - 2016-03-31 07:20 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndk07e$o5q$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380568 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:06:28 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > napisał: > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 11:23:22 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > wrote: > > > > > W dniu środa, 30 marca 2016 23:39:05 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 1:53:22 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:6fd2e0e0-9b97-4f18-af06-c47e1fb142ae@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:460abaa0-0fe7-491a-831e-4324386b0170@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Honesty is the last thing on his mind. For the last ~3 > > > > > > > > years it's been > > > > > > > > |nothing but: > > > > > > > > |1. lies, > > > > > > > > |2. expletives, > > > > > > > > |3. screams, > > > > > > > > |4. non-sequiturs, > > > > > > > > |5. not a single justification for his (mostly idiotic) > > > > > > > > claims. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I'm talking to a bunch of idiots, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |They are not idiots. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In your dreams. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not in my dreams at all, one can simply look it up: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > > > > > > > Now, tell me, which, precisely, of these experiments > > > > > confirms your immutable mathematical truth. > > > > > > > > No. I won't. > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > You're talking about experiments confirming > your moronic mumble. > You don't want to specify them. > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > well, as expected from a puffed moron. |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. |Still no arguments against relativity. No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is able to comprehend. Everything a little more complicated is for you only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should be "cut". > > > > Secondly, it is up > > > > to you to provide the refutations. You do the criticising, you backs > > > > it up. > > > > > > Really? > > > > Sure. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat." > > You're the one announcing immutable mathematic truth. > I'm the one negating, poor idiot. |You are changing the subject again. Wrong, poor idiot. It's been the subject for some posts, you're trying to change it without success. > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > know. |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only yell |and insult. As I've said, I've written much more, but insults are only things simple enough for you to understand. Well, what to expect from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380571 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > your moronic mumble. > > You don't want to specify them. > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > able to comprehend. > Everything a little more complicated is for you > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > be "cut". Still no arguments, just ranting. The point remains: you have never posted an argument against relativity other than (what could be termed at best as) philosophical. Nothing wrong with philosophical arguments, just present them as such. Stop pretending you have a valid scientific argument. Also, belittling your opponents won't get you anywhere. > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > know. > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only yell > |and insult. > > As I've said, I've written much more, Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that "much more" that had any validity. > but insults are > only things simple enough for you to understand. > Well, what to expect from a relativistic moron. Whatever. The point remains: you have never posted valid scientific arguments against relativity. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 23:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndk3b4$r7l$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380576 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > your moronic mumble. > > You don't want to specify them. > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > able to comprehend. > Everything a little more complicated is for you > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > be "cut". |Still no arguments, just ranting. Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion means nothing to me. > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > know. > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > yell > |and insult. > > As I've said, I've written much more, |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that |"much more" that had any validity. Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion means nothing to me. |Whatever. The point remains: you have never posted valid scientific |arguments against relativity. Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion means nothing to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0ce3711-398a-4f6a-80ac-67d8484b9c99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380577 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > your moronic mumble. > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > able to comprehend. > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > be "cut". > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > means nothing to me. > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > know. > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > yell > > |and insult. > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > |"much more" that had any validity. > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > means nothing to me. Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific arguments against relativity. > |Whatever. The point remains: you have never posted valid scientific > |arguments against relativity. > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > means nothing to me. Still no arguments, just more rhetoric. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-31 23:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <777bed98-effe-471d-bb24-41452869ee71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380584 |
W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > able to comprehend. > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > be "cut". > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > know. > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > yell > > > |and insult. > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > means nothing to me. > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > arguments against relativity. Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" argument that something or someone is stupid, how would you start?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 00:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1adbb2c3-ce08-448b-896e-fe523463302e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380596 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:09:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > > able to comprehend. > > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > > be "cut". > > > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > > yell > > > > |and insult. > > > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > means nothing to me. > > > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > > arguments against relativity. > > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would > you start? Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject when your zero-content and zero-success "fight" against relativity is exposed as a fraud. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 00:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a6057bc-91da-474d-9ea1-ba9c82888089@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380600 |
W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 09:11:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:09:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > > > able to comprehend. > > > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > > > be "cut". > > > > > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > > > yell > > > > > |and insult. > > > > > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > > > arguments against relativity. > > > > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" > > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would > > you start? > > Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific cathegory. No scientific arguments. Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified by experiments. But these are things of lesser importance; I could argument here, and you would ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, scientists, like you, don't have to care about their stupidity. But they are stupid, if they don't. Like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 14:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndm217$2i8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380602 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific >> > > arguments against relativity. >> > >> > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" >> > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would >> > you start? >> >> Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject >Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you >just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. >Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific >cathegory. No scientific arguments. >Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified >by experiments. But these are things of lesser >importance; I could argument here, and you would >ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. >Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, >scientists, like you, don't have to care about >their stupidity. >But they are stupid, if they don't. >Like you. B
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 17:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndm5l1$5qn$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380626 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ndm217$2i8$2@pcls7.std.com... mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post >> > > scientific >> > > arguments against relativity. >> > >> > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" >> > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would >> > you start? >> >> Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the >> subject >Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you >just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. >Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific >cathegory. No scientific arguments. >Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified >by experiments. But these are things of lesser >importance; I could argument here, and you would >ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. >Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, >scientists, like you, don't have to care about >their stupidity. >But they are stupid, if they don't. >Like you. |B E
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndmfht$pfl$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380633 |
=?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Wo¼niak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >U¿ytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci grup >dyskusyjnych:ndm217$2i8$2@pcls7.std.com... >mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >>> > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post >>> > > scientific >>> > > arguments against relativity. >>> > >>> > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" >>> > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would >>> > you start? >>> >>> Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change >the >>> subject >>Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you >>just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. >>Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific >>cathegory. No scientific arguments. >>Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified >>by experiments. But these are things of lesser >>importance; I could argument here, and you would >>ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. >>Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, >>scientists, like you, don't have to care about >>their stupidity. >>But they are stupid, if they don't. >>Like you. >|B >E X
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 21:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndmgla$dpj$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380665 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ndmfht$pfl$2@pcls7.std.com... =?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Wo¼niak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >U¿ytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci grup >dyskusyjnych:ndm217$2i8$2@pcls7.std.com... >mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >>> > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post >>> > > scientific >>> > > arguments against relativity. >>> > >>> > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" >>> > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would >>> > you start? >>> >>> Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change >the >>> subject >>Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you >>just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. >>Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific >>cathegory. No scientific arguments. >>Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified >>by experiments. But these are things of lesser >>importance; I could argument here, and you would >>ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. >>Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, >>scientists, like you, don't have to care about >>their stupidity. >>But they are stupid, if they don't. >>Like you. >|B >E |X W
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 01:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndseut$3um$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #380667 |
=?utf-8?Q?Maciej_Woźniak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup >dyskusyjnych:ndmfht$pfl$2@pcls7.std.com... >=?iso-8859-2?Q?Maciej_Wo¼niak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl> writes: >>U¿ytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci grup >>dyskusyjnych:ndm217$2i8$2@pcls7.std.com... >>mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >>>>> > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post >>>>> > > scientific >>>>> > > arguments against relativity. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" >>>>> > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would >>>>> > you start? >>>>> >>>>> Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change >>>the >>>>> subject >>>Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you >>>just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. >>>Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific >>>cathegory. No scientific arguments. >>>Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified >>>by experiments. But these are things of lesser >>>importance; I could argument here, and you would >>>ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. >>>Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, >>>scientists, like you, don't have to care about >>>their stupidity. >>>But they are stupid, if they don't. >>>Like you. >>|B >>E >|X >W π
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9065303c-6f62-4bbb-9c23-3b0e9f731658@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380602 |
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:34:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 09:11:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:09:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > > > > able to comprehend. > > > > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > > > > be "cut". > > > > > > > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > > > > yell > > > > > > |and insult. > > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > > > > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > > > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > > > > arguments against relativity. > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" > > > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would > > > you start? > > > > Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject > > Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you > just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. > Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific > cathegory. No scientific arguments. > > Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified > by experiments. But these are things of lesser > importance; I could argument here, and you would > ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. > > > Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, > scientists, like you, don't have to care about > their stupidity. > But they are stupid, if they don't. > Like you. More poetry. You still posted no arguments against relativity and physics. In order to be treated seriously you need to start by pointing out what's specifically wrong with the following: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html -- Jan -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <255a9ab9-16f7-4371-b860-ec1d0c2277ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380661 |
W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 19:30:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:34:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 09:11:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:09:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > > > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > > > > > able to comprehend. > > > > > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > > > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > > > > > be "cut". > > > > > > > > > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > > > > > yell > > > > > > > |and insult. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > > > > > > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > > > > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > > > > > arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" > > > > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would > > > > you start? > > > > > > Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject > > > > Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you > > just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. > > Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific > > cathegory. No scientific arguments. > > > > Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified > > by experiments. But these are things of lesser > > importance; I could argument here, and you would > > ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. > > > > > > Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, > > scientists, like you, don't have to care about > > their stupidity. > > But they are stupid, if they don't. > > Like you. > > More poetry. You still posted no arguments against relativity and physics. > In order to be treated seriously you need to start by pointing out what's > specifically wrong with the following: > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles exist due to the pure statistical reasons, thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f73176c1-eea7-4e68-bec6-c12204ebc48c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380663 |
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:38:27 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 19:30:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 12:34:56 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 09:11:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:09:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 00:02:00 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:03:34 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:12de6d71-78b3-4609-bd53-96269757811c@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 1:10:24 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:070181cc-104f-419b-9e9a-0cbec1fe67a8@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:56:19 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 31 marca 2016 09:42:15 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you won't. There is no experiment confirming > > > > > > > > > > > the core of your moronic mumble, though they can give > > > > > > > > > > > some support to some details of little importance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is just talk. No arguments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're talking about experiments confirming > > > > > > > > > your moronic mumble. > > > > > > > > > You don't want to specify them. > > > > > > > > > And you're talking about lacking arguments... > > > > > > > > > well, as expected from a puffed moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's all you have to say: "moronic mumble", "puffed moron", etc. > > > > > > > > |Still no arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot. That's only all your tiny brain is > > > > > > > > able to comprehend. > > > > > > > > Everything a little more complicated is for you > > > > > > > > only "words" or "rants" or "poetry" that should > > > > > > > > be "cut". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Still no arguments, just ranting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid writing anything, that makes any sense > > > > > > > > > to you is about impossible. You're really stupid, you > > > > > > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You have never written any valid argument against relativity. You only > > > > > > > > yell > > > > > > > > |and insult. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said, I've written much more, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Much more, yes, but there was never any argument against relativity in that > > > > > > > |"much more" that had any validity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, you're a pathetic fanatic, stupid as a shoe. > > > > > > > Nothing ever will be any argument for you. And your opinion > > > > > > > means nothing to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Still offensive remarks, nothing else. No arguments. Please post scientific > > > > > > arguments against relativity. > > > > > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot - if someone asked you for "scientific" > > > > > argument that something or someone is stupid, how would > > > > > you start? > > > > > > > > Still no argument against relativity, just silly attempts to change the subject > > > > > > Jan, poor idiot, I'm not changing the subject, you > > > just don't know, what the subject is, as usual. > > > Your Shit is stupid. "Stupid" is not a scientific > > > cathegory. No scientific arguments. > > > > > > Of course, it is also inconsistent and falsified > > > by experiments. But these are things of lesser > > > importance; I could argument here, and you would > > > ignore these arguments, as always. Waste of time. > > > > > > > > > Of course, as "stupidity" is not scientific, > > > scientists, like you, don't have to care about > > > their stupidity. > > > But they are stupid, if they don't. > > > Like you. > > > > More poetry. You still posted no arguments against relativity and physics. > > In order to be treated seriously you need to start by pointing out what's > > specifically wrong with the following: > > > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/ > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these papers make mistakes. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef376185-8466-4bcc-9ee7-b4c253670fcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380679 |
W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 22:36:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! > > This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these > papers make mistakes. I showed this about handred times already. the convention described explicitly in the so-called relativity postulates, implies directly: t' = r'/c, thus you now must to modify a time: t' = ... because you are obligated to preserve the light-speed. c' = c-v / c-v = c; it's just a simple: dx'/dt', where a t'-parameter is articicaly adjusted to to preserve the c = inv, what was just assumed. Math doesn't care about the human's competence - so, any idiot has a free will there, hehe!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 15:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7259109d-72f6-4dbc-8b65-cce12fb01cb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380904 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:41:14 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 22:36:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > > > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > > > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! > > > > This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these > > papers make mistakes. > > I showed this about handred times already. No. Not once. > the convention described explicitly in the so-called > relativity postulates, implies directly: t' = r'/c, > thus you now must to modify a time: t' = ... > because you are obligated to preserve the light-speed. > > c' = c-v / c-v = c; > it's just a simple: dx'/dt', > where a t'-parameter is articicaly adjusted to to preserve the c = inv, > what was just assumed. > > Math doesn't care about the human's competence - > so, any idiot has a free will there, hehe! Not _even_ wrong. Nowhere near being _even_ wrong. Man, you are confused! -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13239388-60d6-42d4-b31a-653958a04b01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380915 |
W dniu wtorek, 5 kwietnia 2016 00:02:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:41:14 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 22:36:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > > > > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > > > > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! > > > > > > This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these > > > papers make mistakes. > > > > I showed this about handred times already. > > No. Not once. > > > the convention described explicitly in the so-called > > relativity postulates, implies directly: t' = r'/c, > > thus you now must to modify a time: t' = ... > > because you are obligated to preserve the light-speed. > > > > c' = c-v / c-v = c; > > it's just a simple: dx'/dt', > > where a t'-parameter is articicaly adjusted to to preserve the c = inv, > > what was just assumed. > > > > Math doesn't care about the human's competence - > > so, any idiot has a free will there, hehe! > > Not _even_ wrong. Nowhere near being _even_ wrong. Man, you are confused! The test for thinking, called "Turing's test" doesn't include a smallest piece of math. Of course, any conclusions form the fact require thinking, and thus are unapproachable for a fanatic moron not knowing even math. And stop playing mathematical guru, poor idiot - your "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for 150 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 00:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03df1448-2145-4535-9f7b-9cb5711920bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380926 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:01:10 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 5 kwietnia 2016 00:02:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:41:14 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 22:36:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > > > > > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > > > > > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! > > > > > > > > This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these > > > > papers make mistakes. > > > > > > I showed this about handred times already. > > > > No. Not once. > > > > > the convention described explicitly in the so-called > > > relativity postulates, implies directly: t' = r'/c, > > > thus you now must to modify a time: t' = ... > > > because you are obligated to preserve the light-speed. > > > > > > c' = c-v / c-v = c; > > > it's just a simple: dx'/dt', > > > where a t'-parameter is articicaly adjusted to to preserve the c = inv, > > > what was just assumed. > > > > > > Math doesn't care about the human's competence - > > > so, any idiot has a free will there, hehe! > > > > Not _even_ wrong. Nowhere near being _even_ wrong. Man, you are confused! > > The test for thinking, called "Turing's test" > doesn't include a smallest piece of math. Turing test is not a test for thinking. Have you read Turing's paper? It's not exactly what popular presentations make of it. > Of course, any conclusions form the fact require > thinking, and thus are unapproachable for a > fanatic moron not knowing even math. Except it was you who could not calculate the curvature of a simple surface. > And stop > playing mathematical guru, poor idiot - your > "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for > 150 years. To you I am a guru. There is no contest between us in math. Sorry. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 00:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b93edf1-93c3-4564-9534-79cb5985b0da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380933 |
W dniu wtorek, 5 kwietnia 2016 09:27:22 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:01:10 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 5 kwietnia 2016 00:02:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:41:14 AM UTC-7, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 22:36:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > The pseudoscience is eternal... because the imbeciles > > > > > > exist due to the pure statistical reasons, > > > > > > thus they dominate every population... usually, hehe! > > > > > > > > > > This is just some frustrated talk. Answer the challenge: show where these > > > > > papers make mistakes. > > > > > > > > I showed this about handred times already. > > > > > > No. Not once. > > > > > > > the convention described explicitly in the so-called > > > > relativity postulates, implies directly: t' = r'/c, > > > > thus you now must to modify a time: t' = ... > > > > because you are obligated to preserve the light-speed. > > > > > > > > c' = c-v / c-v = c; > > > > it's just a simple: dx'/dt', > > > > where a t'-parameter is articicaly adjusted to to preserve the c = inv, > > > > what was just assumed. > > > > > > > > Math doesn't care about the human's competence - > > > > so, any idiot has a free will there, hehe! > > > > > > Not _even_ wrong. Nowhere near being _even_ wrong. Man, you are confused! > > > > The test for thinking, called "Turing's test" > > doesn't include a smallest piece of math. > > Turing test is not a test for thinking. Really? So, what is it intended to test? Let me guess - "This is NO QUESTION!!!! This is a RANT!!!!" so you're not going to answer. > Have you read Turing's paper? > It's not exactly what popular presentations make of it. Sure it isn't. The popular presentation is obviously shorter and simplified. Still, the test doesn't include any mathematics. Any conclusions? Let me guess - no. > > Of course, any conclusions form the fact require > > thinking, and thus are unapproachable for a > > fanatic moron not knowing even math. > > Except it was you who could not calculate the curvature of a simple surface. But you do realize, that math is a little bigger subject? That it starts from axioms and logic? > > And stop > > playing mathematical guru, poor idiot - your > > "immutable mathematical truth" is obsolete for > > 150 years. > > To you I am a guru. There is no contest between us in math. Sorry. No, you're not. Yes, there is no contest. You still believe "immutable mathematical truth", 150 years after Lobachevky. Pathetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web