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 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 21:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394540 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:21:00 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > 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. You cannot answer simple test questions about GR, ergo you cannot criticise it in any terms other than non-scientific. That's how real world operates. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 12:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt01g6$h1t$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #394782 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with your Shit. | ergo you cannot criticise it in any |terms other than non-scientific. That's how real world operates. You know nothing about real world and how it operates. And I have a great choice of non-scientific terms fitting the Great Guru's idiocy perfectly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fbf59fd-ad15-4bcb-a767-548d40e0d2e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394795 |
((((4 * pi) / (10^7)) / ((376.730313461 * 50)^2)) / 4) * (c^2) = 79.5774715 79.5774715 * pi = 250 (((4 * pi) / (10^7)) / ((376.730313461 * 50)^2)) / 4 = 8.8541878e-16 seconds = proton radius. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp 8.75100e-16 / ((((4 * pi) / (10^7)) / ((376.730313461 * 50)^2)) / 4) = 0.98834587431
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <039b2233-7b67-4b54-95c9-d6b2344bf538@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394807 |
137.0349 / ((376.730313461 * 49.8461715)^0.5) = 1 (376.730313461 * 50)^0.5 = 137.24618637 ((376.730313461 * 49.8461715) / ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) * G = 0.997341564
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <305cfa32-c941-4571-9d07-bcd0694f152c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394795 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > your Shit. You have not answered the question. You only made some general noise. The question is precise and technical and has a precise technical answer. > | ergo you cannot criticise it in any > |terms other than non-scientific. That's how real world operates. > > You know nothing about real world and how it operates. Irrelevant. The issue is that you post "criticisms" denying relativity while at the same time you cannot solve simple test problems in relativity. This makes you unqualified to make those "criticisms". QED. > And I have a great choice of non-scientific terms fitting > the Great Guru's idiocy perfectly. Nobody cares. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 23:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f4808d1-03cb-4ee6-bbb4-41cadad70db3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394822 |
W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > your Shit. > > You have not answered the question. A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > The question is precise and technical and has a precise technical answer. Which one? there was four. 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 answerred all of them (one answer was "I don't know") but none of them was either precise or technical. > > And I have a great choice of non-scientific terms fitting > > the Great Guru's idiocy perfectly. > > Nobody cares. :) A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5db11091-7b7c-4139-98da-b0b60347ec05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394892 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > your Shit. > > > > You have not answered the question. > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was the following: 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. All you said was some comments in English prose and guesswork, This is not how science works. If you don't know what "answer" means in contexts like this one than perhaps you ought to consider a different hobby. > > The question is precise and technical and has a precise technical answer. > > Which one? there was four. There were none. > 1)is singularity real (no, it isn't) Saying "no, it isn't" is NOT an answer. The test was not designed to find out if you can write English prose but to find out if you are qualified to write _total rejections_ of relativity. You've failed this test. > 2)are the points connected somehow (yes, somehow they are) Ditto. > 3)are the points connected by mathamatical path (no, > they are not) Ditto. > 4)Can an ant walk between them (I don't know, as you > didn't specify your ant) Ditto. > I answerred all of them (one answer was "I don't know") > but none of them was either precise or technical. You haven't answered anything. You only wrote some general comments and guesswork without proof. Nobody was interested in finding out if you can write English prose, the entire _point_ of this problem was to see whether you have the knowledge which is a prerequisite to write (expletive-laden) rejections of relativity. You do not. QED. Would you trust a surgeon who did not know what "normal resting pulse rate" was? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 23:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d538de9-8196-44d1-acbc-be6ab876b1fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394966 |
W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > the following: 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. Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're closer and closer to asking a question that could be treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do you realize, that the equation above does not define the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics matching it. At least - there are if we're talking about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, you didn't specify whether we are).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <52c0b578-2446-443d-9f57-480eacdd0d82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394978 |
W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > the following: 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. > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > you realize, that the equation above does not define > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, > you didn't specify whether we are). And now a little control question for YOU. We have a metric space with RxR set and metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2. Do I mean the cartesian geometry? Let me guess: this is not a question!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04644760-8877-407a-83c3-7ed89d4476b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394988 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > > the following: 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. > > > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're > > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > > you realize, that the equation above does not define > > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics > > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking > > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, > > you didn't specify whether we are). > > And now a little control question for YOU. > We have a metric space with RxR set and > metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2. > Do I mean the cartesian geometry? > Let me guess: this is not a question!!! It's a very poorly phrased question, no physicist or mathematician I know would write it this way. _IF_ you are asking whether ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 defines Euclidean geometry on R^2, _THEN_ the inswer is yes. But I notice again you are trying to divert from the topic which is that you cannot by definition provide valid reasons for rejection of relativity. I think I'm done with this subject, there is nothing to add to that (obvious) conclusion. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30e1c269-1f3c-424f-8a24-b76bd9d94eb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395027 |
W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 21:26:02 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał:
> > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup
> > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with
> > > > > > > your Shit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You have not answered the question.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash.
> > > >
> > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was
> > > > the following: 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.
> > >
> > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in
> > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a
> > > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're
> > > closer and closer to asking a question that could be
> > > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do
> > > you realize, that the equation above does not define
> > > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics
> > > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking
> > > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course,
> > > you didn't specify whether we are).
> >
> > And now a little control question for YOU.
> > We have a metric space with RxR set and
> > metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2.
> > Do I mean the cartesian geometry?
> > Let me guess: this is not a question!!!
>
> It's a very poorly phrased question, no physicist or mathematician I know
> would write it this way. _IF_ you are asking whether ds^2=dx^2+dy^2
> defines Euclidean geometry on R^2, _THEN_ the inswer is yes.
Are you absolutely, absolutely sure? As sure as
the fact you're a great mathematical guru?
You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot.
How about metric given by formula
s(p1,p2)=
cartesian_distance(p1,p2) when cartesian_distance(p1,p2)<=1
1 otherwise
?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 00:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <488c2a5c-8c3a-4e0a-8130-4172c7179a34@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395070 |
On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 21:26:02 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > > > > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > > > > the following: 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. > > > > > > > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > > > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > > > > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're > > > > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > > > > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > > > > you realize, that the equation above does not define > > > > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics > > > > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking > > > > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, > > > > you didn't specify whether we are). > > > > > > And now a little control question for YOU. > > > We have a metric space with RxR set and > > > metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2. > > > Do I mean the cartesian geometry? > > > Let me guess: this is not a question!!! > > > > It's a very poorly phrased question, no physicist or mathematician I know > > would write it this way. _IF_ you are asking whether ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 > > defines Euclidean geometry on R^2, _THEN_ the inswer is yes. > > Are you absolutely, absolutely sure? Yes. This metric is flat and positive definite, hence locally isometric to Euclidean plane. (The phrase "Cartesian geometry" is not used in this context.) > As sure as > the fact you're a great mathematical guru? > You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot. It's amazing you can say such things without any reflection on the content of what you are saying. > How about metric given by formula > s(p1,p2)= > cartesian_distance(p1,p2) when cartesian_distance(p1,p2)<=1 > 1 otherwise > ? We are not talking about metric spaces in this sense. The word "metric" in relativity denotes a different thing. Also, you are trying to avoid assuming responsibility for your ignorance by asking me a question. It doesn't work this way. You criticise, you back it up. I can just sit and twiddle my thumbs. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 00:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7664c168-541d-4794-a0a4-f3c0e214012f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395073 |
W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 09:05:32 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 21:26:02 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > > > > > the following: 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. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > > > > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > > > > > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're > > > > > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > > > > > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > > > > > you realize, that the equation above does not define > > > > > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics > > > > > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking > > > > > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, > > > > > you didn't specify whether we are). > > > > > > > > And now a little control question for YOU. > > > > We have a metric space with RxR set and > > > > metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2. > > > > Do I mean the cartesian geometry? > > > > Let me guess: this is not a question!!! > > > > > > It's a very poorly phrased question, no physicist or mathematician I know > > > would write it this way. _IF_ you are asking whether ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 > > > defines Euclidean geometry on R^2, _THEN_ the inswer is yes. > > > > Are you absolutely, absolutely sure? > > Yes. This metric is flat and positive definite, hence locally isometric to Euclidean plane. > (The phrase "Cartesian geometry" is not used in this context.) > > > As sure as > > the fact you're a great mathematical guru? > > You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot. > > It's amazing you can say such things without any reflection on the content of what > you are saying. > > > How about metric given by formula > > s(p1,p2)= > > cartesian_distance(p1,p2) when cartesian_distance(p1,p2)<=1 > > 1 otherwise > > ? > > We are not talking about metric spaces in this sense. This is my question, poor idiot, not yours. Read it. Yes, we are talking about metric spaces in this sense. You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot. And in your sense ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 doesn't define cartesian metric too. Your moronic ravings won't change it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 12:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d6a9152-290e-4a34-b3e6-ab460eddbe7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395076 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 12:42:54 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 09:05:32 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 11:36:07 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 21:26:02 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 2:46:39 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 08:38:29 UTC+2 użytkownik mlwo...@wp.pl napisał: > > > > > > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > > > > > > the following: 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > > > > > > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > > > > > > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You're > > > > > > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > > > > > > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > > > > > > you realize, that the equation above does not define > > > > > > the metric? there is an infinity of different metrics > > > > > > matching it. At least - there are if we're talking > > > > > > about a special case of a metric space (and, of course, > > > > > > you didn't specify whether we are). > > > > > > > > > > And now a little control question for YOU. > > > > > We have a metric space with RxR set and > > > > > metric matching the equation ds^2=dx^2+dy^2. > > > > > Do I mean the cartesian geometry? > > > > > Let me guess: this is not a question!!! > > > > > > > > It's a very poorly phrased question, no physicist or mathematician I know > > > > would write it this way. _IF_ you are asking whether ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 > > > > defines Euclidean geometry on R^2, _THEN_ the inswer is yes. > > > > > > Are you absolutely, absolutely sure? > > > > Yes. This metric is flat and positive definite, hence locally isometric to Euclidean plane. > > (The phrase "Cartesian geometry" is not used in this context.) > > > > > As sure as > > > the fact you're a great mathematical guru? > > > You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot. > > > > It's amazing you can say such things without any reflection on the content of what > > you are saying. > > > > > How about metric given by formula > > > s(p1,p2)= > > > cartesian_distance(p1,p2) when cartesian_distance(p1,p2)<=1 > > > 1 otherwise > > > ? > > > > We are not talking about metric spaces in this sense. > > > This is my question, poor idiot, not yours. That's what I've just said. And I also said that you are not in the position to ask me questions. > Read it. Yes, we are talking about metric spaces > in this sense. No, we are not. You are trying desperately to divert attention from the simple topic: you cannot provide valid reasons for your total rejection of relativity because you cannot answer my question (a simple test of your knowledge). You are in a position only to post non-scientific objections, e.g. philosophical. That's fine, I also have major philosophical objections to relativity. > You're a poor mathematician and poor idiot. From what I've seen there is indeed no comparison between us. > And in your sense ds^2=dx^2+dy^2 doesn't define > cartesian metric too. Your moronic ravings won't > change it. 1. Not even wrong. Asinine posturing. (Hint: there is no such thing as "cartesian metric", you don't even know the proper terminology, let alone the actual content). 2. Irrelevant because of what I said above. If you want to discuss something else, create a new thread. Here I'm simply pointing out the obvious: a person who cannot answer simple technical questions about relativity cannot by definition form a valid opinion about its rejection. To accept your opinion would be exactly like accepting financial advice from a fund manager ignorant of the stock market. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 23:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt955m$knr$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395136 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:6d6a9152-290e-4a34-b3e6-ab460eddbe7e@googlegroups.com... |That's what I've just said. And I also said that you are not in the position |to ask me questions. Pffff. > Read it. Yes, we are talking about metric spaces > in this sense. |No, we are not. You are trying desperately to divert attention from the simple Yes, we are. You are trying desperately to divert attention from simple fact: you know nothing - even in mathematics. As expected from a relativistic moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fa14377-4b51-450f-9334-fd01683c9b85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395150 |
On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6d6a9152-290e-4a34-b3e6-ab460eddbe7e@googlegroups.com... > > |That's what I've just said. And I also said that you are not in the > position > |to ask me questions. > > Pffff. > > > Read it. Yes, we are talking about metric spaces > > in this sense. > > |No, we are not. You are trying desperately to divert attention from the > simple > > Yes, we are. You are trying desperately to divert attention from > simple fact: you know nothing - even in mathematics. > As expected from a relativistic moron. Your needle is stuck. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 01:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt9brf$p83$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395157 |
Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:5fa14377-4b51-450f-9334-fd01683c9b85@googlegroups.com... On Friday, October 7, 2016 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:6d6a9152-290e-4a34-b3e6-ab460eddbe7e@googlegroups.com... > > |That's what I've just said. And I also said that you are not in the > position > |to ask me questions. > > Pffff. > > > Read it. Yes, we are talking about metric spaces > > in this sense. > > |No, we are not. You are trying desperately to divert attention from the > simple > > Yes, we are. You are trying desperately to divert attention from > simple fact: you know nothing - even in mathematics. > As expected from a relativistic moron. |Your needle is stuck. A.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c633716-462c-40fc-8a57-08d0d63160f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394978 |
On Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 11:38:29 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 6 października 2016 00:59:39 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:57:24 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 20:21:06 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 3:49:44 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > Użytkownik "JanPB" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:64bfa049-c032-46bb-b9a5-20ff5889cb72@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > |You cannot answer simple test questions about GR > > > > > > > > > > Two lies. I answerred it and it had nothing in common with > > > > > your Shit. > > > > > > > > You have not answered the question. > > > > > > A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. > > > > Stop talking nonsense - you have never answered the question, which was > > the following: 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. > > Oh, next version of the immortal question. It was "in > the 2D xy-plane a metric is given". Now it is "in a > subset of the xy plane ...". A progress. You are a total loony tunes. Are you going to complain about a change in the line breaks next? Spacing? Silly goose. > You're > closer and closer to asking a question that could be > treaten as a mathematical (not technical). But do > you realize, that the equation above does not define > the metric? No, it's a specific metric, namely dx^2/x^4 + dy^2. > there is an infinity of different metrics > matching it. I know what you are trying to say but what you say above is incorrect. You've overheard some buzzwords somewhere and are now trying to use them (unsuccessfully). > At least - there are if we're talking > about a special case of a metric space "Metric space" is a very different thing. > (and, of course, > you didn't specify whether we are). Not even wrong. You are completely lost here. I don't think it even makes sense to explain things to you as any such explanation presumes certain minimum knowledge on which the explanations must first of all find a secure footing. Some minimal bedrock is needed, but in your case it's all quicksand. I don't mean it maliciously, there is nothing wrong with not knowing something as long as you don't pretend you do. I don't know anything about brain surgery: there, I've admitted that. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 19:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt9fho$ak4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394822 |
On 10/4/2016 1:21 PM, JanPB wrote: > Irrelevant. The issue is that you post "criticisms" denying relativity > while at the same time you cannot solve simple test problems in relativity. > This makes you unqualified to make those "criticisms". QED. I think you'll find that making qualified criticisms is not something that is important to him. Only criticisms. It's just a boo! holler to convey disrespect, nothing more. Now I personally find astrology and crystal-worshiping to be complete wastes of time. That's why you won't find me in a usenet group about astrology or crystal-worship to convey my contempt and disrespect by idle criticisms. It's a waste of time. Why he chooses to do otherwise with physics is beyond me, but it's a waste of his time. Maybe he gets some satisfaction out of wasting yours too. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4939dcd-3a1f-430f-a1b1-405a28a00fdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395166 |
W dniu sobota, 8 października 2016 02:44:45 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Now I personally find astrology and crystal-worshiping to be complete > wastes of time. That's why you won't find me in a usenet group about > astrology or crystal-worship to convey my contempt and disrespect by > idle criticisms. It's a waste of time. Why he chooses to do otherwise > with physics is beyond me That's very simple, poor idiot. Astrology and crystal worshipping, in opposition to your moronic cult, doesn't waste public money, doesn't brainwash child in school, isn't taught at universities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web