Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391831 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-08 20:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-09 11:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 20:06 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:49 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 23:03 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:55 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-09 00:29 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:49 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:19 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:17 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:34 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:53 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-09 21:52 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-09 20:29 -0500
Re: Gravitational Physics John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 18:39 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-09-10 03:42 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-11 17:08 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-20 23:14 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 14:33 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 00:07 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 00:33 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 00:46 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:08 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:07 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:50 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 11:19 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 22:11 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:35 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:29 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 00:01 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 00:10 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:44 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 23:30 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 01:57 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 02:51 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 04:12 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:59 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:06 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-27 18:16 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:52 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-27 19:56 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:47 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 23:25 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 11:16 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 22:55 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 11:39 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-27 21:55 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:43 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 23:37 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 04:18 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 05:01 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 06:21 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 11:38 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:02 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 14:42 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 23:33 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-01 20:47 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:04 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-02 00:20 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 21:00 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-04 12:49 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:18 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-04 07:27 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 11:21 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-04 23:57 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 15:59 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-05 23:38 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-06 02:46 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:26 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-06 23:36 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 00:05 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-07 00:42 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 12:09 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-07 23:47 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 15:20 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-08 01:41 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 12:19 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 19:44 -0500
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-09 23:15 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-10 23:23 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 23:52 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 01:16 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 04:15 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 05:05 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 05:32 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 05:41 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 14:22 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-12 01:32 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:13 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 14:17 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 21:23 +0000
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 14:20 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 23:21 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 23:38 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 23:54 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:03 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:56 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-12 23:12 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 15:01 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-13 14:53 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 11:59 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 13:56 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-13 23:11 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:36 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:42 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-14 08:04 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 15:20 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 22:33 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-24 22:37 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:23 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 12:46 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-19 19:54 +0000
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-19 23:25 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 13:31 -0500
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 16:12 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 19:14 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 23:28 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:05 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 14:45 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 16:51 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 02:55 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:56 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:41 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 19:59 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:01 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:05 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 21:11 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:54 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 15:03 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 12:56 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:23 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:39 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:29 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:44 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:09 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 13:22 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-17 13:41 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 14:27 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 13:17 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:45 +0000
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:57 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 02:46 +0000
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:42 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:49 +0000
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 19:55 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:51 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 12:07 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:14 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:51 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 12:58 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:06 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 09:12 +0200
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:07 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:10 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 12:51 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:22 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 11:25 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 07:49 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:13 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:23 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:20 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:31 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-03 10:05 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 15:57 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:30 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:03 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:15 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-08 17:03 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-08 17:17 -0700
Re: Gravitational Physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:40 -0700
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 19:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsebsr$n1m$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394001 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55-af91-a661ee67487d@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > napisał: > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > > > JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, > > > > > > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 > > > > > > > użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a > > > > > > > > > > > question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations > > > > > > > > > > at first but your > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed > > > > > > > > > > 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the > > > > > > > > > > abilities > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no > > > > > > > > use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors > > > > are lies. > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > see above. > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical > > question. I can > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D > > xy-plane a > > metric is given: > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry > > is this? Can the point > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) > > to (-1,0)? > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > singularity real?". |No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was exactly as I said, |the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up. Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up. > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. |This is not an answer Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious question, poor idiot. > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > you imagined, can I? |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know". > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. Buhahahahahahahaha. You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment. Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if your "technical" knowledge can stand the experiment. What do you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04b688c2-57b1-4052-9812-d440fa484976@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394013 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:56:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55-af91-a661ee67487d@googlegroups.com... > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > > napisał: > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > > > > JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, > > > > > > > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 > > > > > > > > użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a > > > > > > > > > > > > question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations > > > > > > > > > > > at first but your > > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed > > > > > > > > > > > 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the > > > > > > > > > > > abilities > > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no > > > > > > > > > use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors > > > > > are lies. > > > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > > see above. > > > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical > > > question. I can > > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D > > > xy-plane a > > > metric is given: > > > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry > > > is this? Can the point > > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) > > > to (-1,0)? > > > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > singularity real?". > > |No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was > exactly as I said, > |the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up. > > Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly > stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up. > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > |This is not an answer > > Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious > question, poor idiot. Why isn't my question serious? Here it is again: can the points (1,0) and (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > > you imagined, can I? > > |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know". > > > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. > > |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. > > Buhahahahahahahaha. Is this your answer? The question was: can the points (1,0) and (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment. > Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric > you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if > your "technical" knowledge can stand the > experiment. What do you think? This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering. You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 23:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a2a9bb7-e384-4a93-aa3f-108acbe37a46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394060 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:47:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:56:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55-af91-a661ee67487d@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > > > > > JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, > > > > > > > > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 > > > > > > > > > użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a > > > > > > > > > > > > > question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations > > > > > > > > > > > > at first but your > > > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed > > > > > > > > > > > > 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the > > > > > > > > > > > > abilities > > > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no > > > > > > > > > > use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors > > > > > > are lies. > > > > > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > > > see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical > > > > question. I can > > > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D > > > > xy-plane a > > > > metric is given: > > > > > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry > > > > is this? Can the point > > > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) > > > > to (-1,0)? > > > > > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > singularity real?". > > > > |No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was > > exactly as I said, > > |the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up. > > > > Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly > > stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up. > > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > |This is not an answer > > > > Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious > > question, poor idiot. > > Why isn't my question serious? Here it is again: can the points (1,0) and > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > > > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > > > you imagined, can I? > > > > |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know". > > > > > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. > > > > |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. > > > > Buhahahahahahahaha. > > Is this your answer? The question was: can the points (1,0) and > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. A lie, lying scum. The question was "can they be connected somehow". Anyone can check it out. But, your next question is trivial again. Quoting: "This line element is undefined along the y-axis." Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y axis. > > You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment. > > Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric > > you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if > > your "technical" knowledge can stand the > > experiment. What do you think? > > This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering. > You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby. No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine ants unable to cross your phantasmagory. Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross the singularity" seems well defined to you. I'm a thinking man, so I can imagine ants able to cross or unable to cross. So for me your question is not well defined.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2287d139-abe4-4180-a8f5-48d206921227@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394091 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:25:49 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:47:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:56:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55-af91-a661ee67487d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > > > > > > JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, > > > > > > > > > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 > > > > > > > > > > użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations > > > > > > > > > > > > > at first but your > > > > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the > > > > > > > > > > > > > abilities > > > > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no > > > > > > > > > > > use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors > > > > > > > are lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > > > > see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > > > > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical > > > > > question. I can > > > > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D > > > > > xy-plane a > > > > > metric is given: > > > > > > > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry > > > > > is this? Can the point > > > > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) > > > > > to (-1,0)? > > > > > > > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > |No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was > > > exactly as I said, > > > |the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up. > > > > > > Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly > > > stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up. > > > > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > > > |This is not an answer > > > > > > Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious > > > question, poor idiot. > > > > Why isn't my question serious? Here it is again: can the points (1,0) and > > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > > > > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > > > > you imagined, can I? > > > > > > |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know". > > > > > > > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. > > > > > > |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. > > > > > > Buhahahahahahahaha. > > > > Is this your answer? The question was: can the points (1,0) and > > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > A lie, lying scum. The question was "can they be > connected somehow". Anyone can check it out. So why can't you answer it? > But, your next question is trivial again. > Quoting: > "This line element is undefined along the y-axis." > Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y > axis. No, silly goose, your answer is incorrect. How can you post even a single WORD of criticism of relativity or physics given your state of knowledge as witnessed in the above is beyond comprehension of any normal person. Just thought you might be interested in knowing this. > > > You know, poor idiot, let's make an experiment. > > > Take a sheet of paper. Assign to it the metric > > > you mentioned. Put an ant on it. Let's see if > > > your "technical" knowledge can stand the > > > experiment. What do you think? > > > > This is just an attempt at bullshitting your way out of answering. > > You got an F. I suggest you change your hobby. > > No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine > ants unable to cross your phantasmagory. Not even wrong. The question is unambiguous and has an unambiguous answer. > Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross > the singularity" seems well defined to you. It's simply a well-posed question which assumes understanding of the subject. Nothing to do with me. > I'm a thinking man, so I can imagine ants > able to cross or unable to cross. So for me > your question is not well defined. This is again irrelevant: the fact that something appears to you not "well-defined" proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine nor any physicist's. You don't know the answer, therefore you cannot (by definition) form a valid critical opinion about validity of relativity. It's OK for an amateur to criticise certain non-scientific aspects of it, e.g. its philosophy (I have major philosophical problems with relativity myself), but it's not OK for him to make a sweeping general dismissal. Such dismissal is necessarily based on hearsay so it's simply noise, and you are wasting time looking for signal in that noise (you can find anything in noise if you twist it long and hard enough). You don't speak German, you don't get to criticise the style of Goethe. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a9140494-0438-44b8-a302-76db32efbe01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394141 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 20:16:08 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:25:49 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:47:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 10:56:45 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:833e8901-8989-4d55-af91-a661ee67487d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > > > > > > napisał: > > > > > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik > > > > > > > > > JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, > > > > > > > > > > mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 > > > > > > > > > > > użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej > > > > > > > > > > > > > Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at first but your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > abilities > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no > > > > > > > > > > > > use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors > > > > > > > > are lies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > > > > > see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > > > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > > > > > > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical > > > > > > question. I can > > > > > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D > > > > > > xy-plane a > > > > > > metric is given: > > > > > > > > > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > > > > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry > > > > > > is this? Can the point > > > > > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) > > > > > > to (-1,0)? > > > > > > > > > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > > > |No, that was not the "question" that lead to the "2D ants" bit. It was > > > > exactly as I said, > > > > |the record is clear on it so stop making stuff up. > > > > > > > > Exactly as I said, you're a lying scum. And, even worse, extremly > > > > stupid one. The record is clear on it, so stop making stuff up. > > > > > > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > > > > > |This is not an answer > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. If you want a serious answer, ask a serious > > > > question, poor idiot. > > > > > > Why isn't my question serious? Here it is again: can the points (1,0) and > > > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > > > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > > > > > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > > > > > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > > > > > you imagined, can I? > > > > > > > > |What a stupid thing to say! Just say "I don't know". > > > > > > > > > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. > > > > > > > > |Everything you need to know has been specified in the question. > > > > > > > > Buhahahahahahahaha. > > > > > > Is this your answer? The question was: can the points (1,0) and > > > (-1,0) be connected by a path in the geometry described on a subset of the > > > xy-plane by the metric ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > A lie, lying scum. The question was "can they be > > connected somehow". Anyone can check it out. > > So why can't you answer it? I can and I did. > > > But, your next question is trivial again. > > Quoting: > > "This line element is undefined along the y-axis." > > Your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y > > axis. > > No, silly goose, your answer is incorrect. Yes, poor idiot, your geometry doesn't define a path crossing y axis. More, your question has NOTHING in common with modelling of reality. > > No. You are an idiot, so you can only imagine > > ants unable to cross your phantasmagory. > > Not even wrong. The question is unambiguous and has an unambiguous answer. Wrong, poor idiot. It is not and it doesn't. > > > Thus, question "can an imagined ant cross > > the singularity" seems well defined to you. > > It's simply a well-posed question which assumes understanding of the subject. Which assumes understanding your way. > This is again irrelevant: the fact that something appears to you not > "well-defined" proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine nor > any physicist's. Oppositely, poor idiot. the fact that something appears to you well defined proves your ignorance which is your problem, not mine. > You don't know the answer, therefore you cannot (by > definition) form a valid critical opinion about validity of relativity. Even if assumption was true, it would be only a logic of puffed halfbrain you are. > You don't speak German, you don't get to criticise the style of Goethe. I don't get to criticize the style of Goethe, indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393955 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:51:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 10:57:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:30:28 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 18:44:34 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 09:01:11 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:29:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 00:35:31 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 1:11:48 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:8ff1965c-1761-45b4-aed0-f3ec7b737f86@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 2:50:33 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:b3f5ed65-1c53-4690-97c0-422dc0dd3ad5@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Nope. Just check this NG's record. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I will see only screams like "this is not a question!!! > > > > > > > > > > > this is a RANT!!!!!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |That's not how it started. I gave proper explanations at first but your > > > > > > > > > > responses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as usual, but it doesn't matter now. > > > > > > > > > > You can do some calculations of some assumed 2-dimensional > > > > > > > > > > ants or something, but MEASURING is far beyond the abilities > > > > > > > > > > of your tiny brain. Samely as serious Tarski's logic. > > > > > > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Get help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > So, poor idiot, once again: what is the interval between > > > > > > > > > events "battle of Gaugamela" and "battle of Waterloo" > > > > > > > > > and how did you measure it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Come back when you understand how the 2D ants work. It's no use practicing a Liszt sonata > > > > > > > > with you if you cannot play scales. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Measurement, poor idiot, has nothing in > > > > > > > common with your imagined ants or > > > > > > > with your Liszt sonata. > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said it did. > > > > > > > > > > A lie. As anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > Not a lie. You simply cannot comprehend metaphors or analogies. > > > > > > A lie, as anyone can see above. > > > > > > > > > > pointed out in his "Power of Myth" that for some people metaphors are lies. > > > > > > Metaphore isn't. But "I never said" is, as anyone can > > > see above. > > > > > > > > You pretend to have incredible technical knowledge. > > > > > But all you have is just that: metaphors. > > > > > > > > The technical stuff is lost on you. > > > > > > You don't have any. You have only some > > > primitive metaphores. > > > > False. I used the "2D ants" picture while stating a precise mathematical question. I can > > repeat it again as you count on people forgetting the context: in the 2D xy-plane a > > metric is given: > > > > ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > > > > This line element is undefined along the y-axis. Question: what geometry is this? Can the point > > (1,0) be connected to (-1,0) somehow? I.e. could an ant walk from (1,0) to (-1,0)? > > You're a lying scum, as expected from a relativistic moron. No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > singularity real?". No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > No, singularity was not real, it was It doesn't matter here. You are bringing up an unrelated issue (one of your standard "debating" "techniques"). > a creation of your sick imagination, together with your > ants. And your metric. You still don't get it, do you. > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very easy question and it's telling that a person unable to answer it posts "criticisms" of relativity. > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > you imagined, can I? Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question, get over it. I've already suggested a different hobby. > Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. Gobbledygook. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 21:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nseira$lia$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394022 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > singularity real?". |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very You've got your answer, poor idiot. Want another answer - try to think about your question instead moronic waving arms. > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > you imagined, can I? |Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question A lie. You asked, whether the points are connected somehow and you got the connection somehow. While my question "how do you measure your moronic metric" has still no answer. Get over it. Try another hobby, poor idiot. Answering questions is beyond your abilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <20047c31-e7a0-4ec8-958c-84854d4abd39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394038 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > singularity real?". > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. I'll leave it at that. > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very > > You've got your answer, poor idiot. No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here it is in its glorious lack of content: + Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to + invent a serious question. Can the points be connected + somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. + + The second part of the question, including ants, is the + same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants + you imagined, can I? + Unless you specify them, and you're too stupid for that. And you call me "poor idiot". You have some front. Pathetic. > Want another answer - try to > think about your question instead moronic waving arms. Cut the rhetoric. > > The second part of the question, including ants, is the > > same. I can't know, however, technical abilities of ants > > you imagined, can I? > > |Gobbledygook. You cannot answer a simple question > > A lie. Where is your answer? You've never given one. Do you even know what "lie" means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them of the offensive variety with no content otherwise). > You asked, whether the points are connected somehow > and you got the connection somehow. Yes. What's your answer? Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing serious. About 30 seconds' work. > While my question "how do you measure your moronic > metric" has still no answer. I've never even considered this question because you asked it as a diversion (one of your standard "debating" "techniques" here). Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your question would inevitably lead down a Mandelbrot-set-like string of clarifications which together with your inability to understand anything or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by now). That's why I keep saying that I answer your questions only if my answers may look interesting to someone else. See also: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong > Get over it. Try another hobby, poor idiot. Answering > questions is beyond your abilities. All you did was trying to change the topic by asking an unrelated question. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 23:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31a8131e-bbf1-4e4c-93a7-a7c1723fb4fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394058 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > singularity real?". > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > I'll leave it at that. Won't you check the record? > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very > > > > You've got your answer, poor idiot. > > No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here > it is in its glorious lack of content: No, the question WAS different. But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to. You guessed correctly. > > A lie. > > Where is your answer? You've never given one. A lie. Do you even know what "lie" > means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them > of the offensive variety with no content otherwise). > > > You asked, whether the points are connected somehow > > and you got the connection somehow. > > Yes. Decide. Just some paragraphes above you wrote the question was different... > What's your answer? Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow. > Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing No, it isn't. > > While my question "how do you measure your moronic > > metric" has still no answer. > > I've never even considered this question because you Because you have no idea. Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms. And it leads. Which together with your inability to understand anything or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by now).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 04:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dfb30f1-9127-46e4-9e74-af467ae0a961@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394093 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:38:00 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > > > I'll leave it at that. > > Won't you check the record? > > > > > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very > > > > > > You've got your answer, poor idiot. > > > > No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there > > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the > > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here > > it is in its glorious lack of content: > > No, the question WAS different. > But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to. > You guessed correctly. > > > > A lie. > > > > Where is your answer? You've never given one. > > A lie. > Do you even know what "lie" > > means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them > > of the offensive variety with no content otherwise). > > > > > You asked, whether the points are connected somehow > > > and you got the connection somehow. > > > > Yes. > > Decide. Just some paragraphes above you wrote the > question was different... > > > > What's your answer? > > Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow. > > > Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing > > No, it isn't. > > > While my question "how do you measure your moronic > > > metric" has still no answer. > > > > I've never even considered this question because you > > Because you have no idea. > > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your > question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no > answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms. > And it leads. > Which together with your inability to understand anything > or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at > this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by > now). This troll is really funny. Since 1997 he has vastly demonstrate here he knows nothing about any science subject. Listen trash, we know that and we do not need that you demonstrate your ignorance several times a day. Get new drugs and find a better doctor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26ff31de-7f9f-40e0-bd4d-d8892fce6e4e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394102 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 13:18:23 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 3:38:00 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > > > > > I'll leave it at that. > > > > Won't you check the record? > > > > > > > > > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > > > > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very > > > > > > > > You've got your answer, poor idiot. > > > > > > No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there > > > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the > > > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here > > > it is in its glorious lack of content: > > > > No, the question WAS different. > > But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to. > > You guessed correctly. > > > > > > A lie. > > > > > > Where is your answer? You've never given one. > > > > A lie. > > Do you even know what "lie" > > > means? You seem very liberal with the word (and many other words, all of them > > > of the offensive variety with no content otherwise). > > > > > > > You asked, whether the points are connected somehow > > > > and you got the connection somehow. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Decide. Just some paragraphes above you wrote the > > question was different... > > > > > > > What's your answer? > > > > Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow. > > > > > Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing > > > > No, it isn't. > > > > While my question "how do you measure your moronic > > > > metric" has still no answer. > > > > > > I've never even considered this question because you > > > > Because you have no idea. > > > > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile so answering your > > question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no > > answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms. > > And it leads. > > Which together with your inability to understand anything > > or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at > > this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by > > now). > > This troll is really funny. Since 1997 he has vastly demonstrate here he knows nothing about any science subject. > > Listen trash, we know that and we do not need that you demonstrate your ignorance several times a day. > > Get new drugs and find a better doctor. Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you can do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c9c0fbd-05d0-4701-800e-f460c6d78a5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394106 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 9:01:40 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 13:18:23 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > This troll is really funny. Since 1997 he has vastly demonstrate here he knows nothing about any science subject. > > > > Listen trash, we know that and we do not need that you demonstrate your ignorance several times a day. > > > > Get new drugs and find a better doctor. > > Rave, moron, and spit. That's all you can do. Keep trolling and shitting ignorant moron, that's all you are able to do!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae4811d3-45df-4780-92b3-5a43a3f10db4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394093 |
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > > > I'll leave it at that. > > Won't you check the record? No. > > > > Now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to > > > > invent a serious question. Can the points be connected > > > > somehow? Yes, the section((-1,0)(1,0)) connects them - somehow. > > > > > > |Just don't try to answer it if you don't know the answer. This is a very > > > > > > You've got your answer, poor idiot. > > > > No. The question is precise, so is the answer. The question was: does there > > exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the > > xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Your answer was just hand waving: here > > it is in its glorious lack of content: > > No, the question WAS different. No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above. You cannot answer it so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments to avoid simply admitting you have no answer. > But - now your question is trivial too, as you're too stupid to. It's not trivial. It's very easy but not trivial. > > Where is your answer? You've never given one. > > A lie. You have never answered this problem. The closest you got to it was saying "No" (with no proof) which also happens to be incorrect. > > What's your answer? > > Yes, the ((-1,0)..(1,0)) section connects them - somehow. > > > Hint: a bit of calculation is involved, nothing > > No, it isn't. It is. Without a small calculation one cannot answer this question. (Of course you can write some random words and call this "answer" but obviously this is just playing games.) > > > While my question "how do you measure your moronic > > > metric" has still no answer. > > > > I've never even considered this question because you > > Because you have no idea. I know the answer very well. > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile Again, copying my words verbatim. > so answering your > question would inevitably lead to screams "not even wrong!" "this is no > answer!" "Irrelevant!!" or moronic waving arms. Yes, because that's what you post. You cannot see it because you have a blind spot of some sort and also for some reason your inability to answer this question does NOT raise a huge red flag in your brain as it normally would in a normal person. > And it leads. > Which together with your inability to understand anything > or ever admit making a mistake makes the entire exercise rather boring at > this point (it was fun in 2013 but there is too much repetition in this by > now). Again, you are cutting and pasting my words. Believe it or not, I am not flattered. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 23:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2222650a-b5ec-4a14-a967-69c5e1a41ba5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394145 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 20:38:45 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > > > > > I'll leave it at that. > > > > Won't you check the record? > > No. Of course. > > > it is in its glorious lack of content: > > > > No, the question WAS different. > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above. A lie. > You cannot answer it A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments > to avoid simply admitting you have no answer. A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. BTW, that's exactly what you're doing about my question of metric measurement. > > A lie. > > You have never answered this problem. What problem? You've specified 4 problems. 1)is singularity real (no, it isn't) 2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are) 3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no, they are not) 4)Can an ant walk between them (I don't know, as you didn't specify your ant) > > > I've never even considered this question because you > > > > Because you have no idea. > > I know the answer very well. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile > > Again, copying my words verbatim. Again, talking to an idiot I'm descending to his level.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 14:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a17bd9e7-b55e-4e67-b226-343bacb4d22b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394219 |
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 11:02:22 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 20:38:45 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 11:38:00 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 01:43:10 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:5dcb2028-1f1e-45a4-a100-e54403798e7d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > The question you asked then was different. It was "is the > > > > > > singularity real?". > > > > > > > > > > |No, your "2D ants" nonsense came from the problem I quoted above. > > > > > > > > > > No, that's exactly what happened. Check the record. > > > > > > > > I'll leave it at that. > > > > > > Won't you check the record? > > > > No. > > Of course. > > > > > it is in its glorious lack of content: > > > > > > No, the question WAS different. > > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above. > > A lie. So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? You just say "2D ants" whenever someone mentions, say, Vincent van Gogh? Or maybe Dostoyevsky? > > You cannot answer it > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. How can any sane person call this a lie? You have simply never answered the question. It seems to me you call "the answer" any comment made after a question is asked. This is not what normal people consider an answer. > > so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments > > to avoid simply admitting you have no answer. > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. Your vocabulary seems stuck. Save yourself cutting and pasting the phrase "as expected from relativistic trash", you look like an idiot every time you post it. Secondly, what I said is the truth. You have never answered my question. You've only made some comments and (incorrect) guesses. If the word "answering" is too confusing for you, perhaps use the phrase "solving the problem". So I stated a problem and you attacked it for the standard metaphoric language it used (which BTW betrays at once you lack the training as this sort of metaphoric talk is a part of the professional culture and is considered important for efficient communication, see e.g. Paul Halmos' autobiography - you've heard of Paul Halmos, haven't you?) but you have never _solved the problem_. Instead, you attacked an irrelevancy. What's next, how about you claiming Richard Feynman was an idiot because his papers in scientific journals were usually printed in a two-column print format? > BTW, that's exactly what you're doing about > my question of metric measurement. This question is a totally different subject, i.e. it's merely yet another of your childish attempts to deflect the topic: namely that you cannot answer (i.e. solve - see above) the "ants" problem in the 2D plane. > > > A lie. > > > > You have never answered this problem. > > What problem? You've specified 4 problems. No, just one: does there exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > 1)is singularity real (no, it isn't) This is not what your "2D ants" screaming was about. I won't even address the correctness, or the lack of it, of what you wrote above. > 2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are) This is not answering the problem. It's simply a random comment posted as a response. If you cannot tell the two apart you have a cognitive problem. > 3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no, > they are not) Incorrect. You obviously don't even understand the question and assume it's just about connecting two points in the xy-plane with the y-axis removed? The question is NOT about that situation, as obviously this sort of (trivial) question would not require anyone even mentioning the metric ds^2, and it has a trivial answer (which you gave above - an answer to a different question). > 4)Can an ant walk between them (I don't know, as you > didn't specify your ant) Bogus. > > > > I've never even considered this question because you > > > > > > Because you have no idea. > > > > I know the answer very well. > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. It's a"lie" that I know the answer? HAHAHAHA! I have POSTED the answer here few months ago, detailed calculation and everything else that's involved in it. It was a rather long post with many detailed examples of that type. If you missed it, I'll let you suffer a bit longer and won't post the actual answer here yet. > > > Besides, your grasp of the concepts is extremely fragile > > > > Again, copying my words verbatim. > > Again, talking to an idiot I'm descending to his level. Unfortunately, words are cheap. The facts OTOH are: so far you cannot solve that little problem and instead of learning the subject you attack me for the only thing you can understand: an irrelevancy (some little metaphor I used). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 23:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f10bf2fd-b5d0-4c3e-88de-1eed44d67281@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394289 |
W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 23:42:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above. > > > > A lie. > > So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? A lie is "no, it wasn't". Google keeps record, poor idiot. > > > You cannot answer it > > > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > > How can any sane person call this a lie? You have simply never answered the > question. A lie. You Asked 4 questions, I answered them all (one answer was - I don't know). > It seems to me you call "the answer" any comment made after a question > is asked Any comment not necessarily, but my answers were very clear "yes" or "no". > > > so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments > > > to avoid simply admitting you have no answer. > > > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > > Your vocabulary seems stuck. Save yourself cutting and pasting the phrase > "as expected from relativistic trash", you look like an idiot every time > you post it. Secondly, what I said is the truth. You have never answered > my question. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. You've only made some comments and (incorrect) guesses. If > the word "answering" is too confusing for you, perhaps use the phrase > "solving the problem". So I stated a problem and you attacked it for the > standard metaphoric language Decide, poor idiot - technical or metaphoric? One exclude the other... but how would such an idiot know. > > BTW, that's exactly what you're doing about > > my question of metric measurement. > > This question is a totally different subject, i.e. it's merely yet another > of your childish attempts to deflect the topic: namely that you cannot answer > (i.e. solve - see above) the "ants" problem in the 2D plane. A lie, again. I asked this question before. > > What problem? You've specified 4 problems. > > No, just one: A lie. Google keeps record, poor idiot. > does there exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry > described on a subset of the xy-plane as: ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. Once again - no. Your geometry is undefined at x=0. No defined path crosses x axis. Generally, it wouldn't be sufficient, but in this case it is. > > 1)is singularity real (no, it isn't) > > This is not what your "2D ants" screaming was about. No, but this is the first question (yours) in the whole subject. Or, at least, the first I saw. > > 2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are) > > This is not answering the problem. This is answer for YOUR question "are the points connected somehow". > > 3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no, > > they are not) > > Incorrect. You obviously don't even understand the question and assume > it's just about connecting two points in the xy-plane with the y-axis > removed? Yes, poor idiot - I assume that "are they connected" is a question about connecting. Of course, I remember I'm talking to a mumbling idiot, but - still - I answer the questions written by you, not imagined by you. > > > I know the answer very well. > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > It's a"lie" that I know the answer? HAHAHAHA! Yes. > I have POSTED the answer here few months ago, detailed calculation Jan, you're an extreme idiot, but you know the difference between a calculation and a measurement, don't you? I haven't seen your answer, anyway. > If you missed it, I'll let you suffer a bit longer and won't post the > actual answer here yet. So, I assume it's just one of your common lies. > > Again, talking to an idiot I'm descending to his level. > > Unfortunately, words are cheap. The facts OTOH are: so far you cannot > solve that little problem No, the facts are: so far you couldn't describe that little problem properly. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <22a58b63-0ccf-44e6-b59e-ec744b6015fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394339 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:33:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 23:42:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question quoted above. > > > > > > A lie. > > > > So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? > > A lie is "no, it wasn't". Well, I'll repeat again then: if it wasn't a lie then where did your "2D ants" come from? Do you bring up "2D ants" in conversations about Renaissance art, for example? > Google keeps record, poor idiot. Try avoiding referring to people in this manner. It makes you look foolish. (Just an advice.) > > > > You cannot answer it > > > > > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > > > > How can any sane person call this a lie? You have simply never answered the > > question. > > A lie. You Asked 4 questions, I answered > them all (one answer was - I don't know). Yopu haven't asnwered the question which was: does there exist a path from (1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane as ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. You posted some prose but just posting anything is not what "answer" means. If the word "answer" confuses you (you take everything extremely literally) then post a solution. Actually I don't even care whether you post it or not at this point. It's enough that you cannot do very simple problems, hence your general denials of relativity are good for entertainment only. > > It seems to me you call "the answer" any comment made after a question > > is asked > > Any comment not necessarily, but my answers > were very clear "yes" or "no". That's not the answer. Sorry. If it were that easy there would be no need for universities and learning in general. > > > > so you invent all sort of cuckoo pseudo-arguments > > > > to avoid simply admitting you have no answer. > > > > > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > > > > Your vocabulary seems stuck. Save yourself cutting and pasting the phrase > > "as expected from relativistic trash", you look like an idiot every time > > you post it. Secondly, what I said is the truth. You have never answered > > my question. > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Feel better now? > You've only made some comments and (incorrect) guesses. If > > the word "answering" is too confusing for you, perhaps use the phrase > > "solving the problem". So I stated a problem and you attacked it for the > > standard metaphoric language > > Decide, poor idiot - technical or metaphoric? You haven't solved that problem. You're attempting to divert away from\ the topic again. > One exclude the other... Like I care. The point if this little debate is very simple: if you cannot answer a simple technical question in GR, you cannot (by definition) form valid critical opinions of general nature regarding GR. In other words, everything you've posting here for several years now that criticises relativity in those terms is junk. Skipping the rest for obvious reasons: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong "Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, which requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one." -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 20:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsp0d4$rik$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394419 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:22a58b63-0ccf-44e6-b59e-ec744b6015fd@googlegroups.com... On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:33:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 23:42:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question > > > > quoted above. > > > > > > A lie. > > > > So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? > > A lie is "no, it wasn't". |Well, I'll repeat again then: if it wasn't a lie then where did your "2D ants" These are your ants, and they came from your "technical" mumble. > > > > You cannot answer it > > > > > > A lie. As expected from relativistic trash. > > > > How can any sane person call this a lie? You have simply never answered > > the > > question. > > A lie. You Asked 4 questions, I answered > them all (one answer was - I don't know). |Yopu haven't asnwered the question which was: does there exist a path from |(1,0) to (-1,0) in the geometry described on a subset of the xy-plane as |ds^2 = dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. A lie, the question (initial) was different. A lie, I answerred the question above, I can say the answer again - no, it doesn't. > Any comment not necessarily, but my answers > were very clear "yes" or "no". |That's not the answer. Yes, it is. Sorry, question "does there exists" are answerred by yes or no. > You've only made some comments and (incorrect) guesses. If > > the word "answering" is too confusing for you, perhaps use the phrase > > "solving the problem". So I stated a problem and you attacked it for the > > standard metaphoric language > > Decide, poor idiot - technical or metaphoric? |You haven't solved that problem. You didn't describe your problem. |Like I care. The point if this little debate is very simple: if you cannot |answer a simple technical question in GR Your mumble is no way technical and your 2-dimensional ants have nothing in common With The Shit. Poor idiot. Skipping the rest for obvious reasons: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness#Dealing_with_the_fractally_wrong |"Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, |as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a |rejoinder, Like screaming "not even wrong!!! gobledygook!! that's nor the answer!!! That's not the question!!!"etc,etc,etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40de0dd7-eed7-409a-b33e-5e462deb5748@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394504 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:48:06 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:22a58b63-0ccf-44e6-b59e-ec744b6015fd@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:33:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 23:42:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question > > > > > quoted above. > > > > > > > > A lie. > > > > > > So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? > > > > A lie is "no, it wasn't". > > |Well, I'll repeat again then: if it wasn't a lie then where did your "2D > ants" > > These are your ants, and they came from your "technical" > mumble. Good, so they did come from my specific question (it's not "technical mumble", you must feel really insecure if you feel you must decorate virtually every mode of address by condescending remarks). Now, you cannot answer it. Hence you cannot form valid general ciritical opinions about relativity. Case closed. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nspcsb$8du$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394537 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:40de0dd7-eed7-409a-b33e-5e462deb5748@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:48:06 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:22a58b63-0ccf-44e6-b59e-ec744b6015fd@googlegroups.com... > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 11:33:46 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 23:42:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB > > napisał: > > > > > > > No, it wasn't. Your "2D ants" nonsense referred to my question > > > > > quoted above. > > > > > > > > A lie. > > > > > > So where does your "2D ants" remark come from? > > > > A lie is "no, it wasn't". > > |Well, I'll repeat again then: if it wasn't a lie then where did your "2D > ants" > > These are your ants, and they came from your "technical" > mumble. |Good, so they did come from my specific question (it's not "technical mumble", Right, it's not technical. It's common mumble of an insane moron imagining he is technical. |Now, you cannot answer it. Hence you cannot form valid general ciritical |opinions about relativity. Feel free to imagine, imagine, imagine and imagine. |Case closed. No.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web