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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #399871 > unrolled thread

Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good).

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

Contents

  Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 17:05 -0800
    Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-27 13:55 +0100
      Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-28 07:21 +1100
        Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-27 16:10 -0600
          Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). HGW <hw@....> - 2016-11-29 08:40 +1100
      Re: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good). Reggie Sippel <SippieoRRpSg@Sippie.RRpSg.Sip> - 2016-11-29 14:47 +0000
        Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good)) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-29 16:28 +0100
          Re: Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good)) Julian Alewine <lliian@lliianenpo.org> - 2016-11-29 17:34 +0000
            Re: Lorentz transformations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-29 19:07 +0100
          Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-11-30 05:04 +1100
            Re: Lorentz transformations Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-29 10:29 -0800
              Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-29 21:03 +0000
                Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 03:41 +1100
                  Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 11:17 -0600
                    Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:44 +1100
                      Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0600
                  Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 22:08 +0000
                    Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 21:07 +1100
                      Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 16:00 +0000
                  Re: Lorentz transformations Python <python@python.invalid> - 2016-12-01 20:33 +0100
                    Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 05:29 +1100
            Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 12:36 -0600
              Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-01 02:56 +1100
                Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 10:36 -0600
                  Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 08:43 +1100
                    Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0600
                      Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 20:54 +1100
                        Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 10:41 -0600
                          Re: Lorentz transformations "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:11 -0800
                      Re: Lorentz transformations Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-12-01 15:10 +0100
                    Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-30 22:18 +0000
                      Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-01 21:05 +1100
                        Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-01 15:51 +0000
                          Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-02 05:44 +1100
                            Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:21 -0600
                              Re: Lorentz transformations "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-12-03 05:23 +1100
                                Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 12:27 -0600
                                  Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-04 11:03 +1100
                                    Re: Lorentz transformations benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-03 21:21 -0500
                                      Re: Lorentz transformations HGW <hw@....> - 2016-12-05 06:41 +1100
                                        Re: Lorentz transformations moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-05 01:14 +0000
                            Re: Lorentz transformations Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:23 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#399871 — Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good).

 

Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly tangential velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter. As time increases, the earth's yearly tangential velocity vector px produces the ether drift since the earth is ostensibly propagating through a stationary ether, composed of matter, that exists in all of the stellar universe. At the surface of the earth near sunset, the magnitude of px is zero (fig 7) since px  is pointing tangent to the earth's surface but because of the earth's daily motion, at midnight, px is equal Mach 80 (earth's yearly velocity  p); consequently, as time increases, the ether wind px varies from zero to more than 60,000 mph; furthermore, the direction of the ether wind px at noon and midnight completely changes direction since at midnight the earth wind is propagating in the eastern direction but a noon the earth wind is propagating in the western direction. Lorentz's transformation is diametrically unnecessary since light propagating in vacuum is definitive and irreversible experimental proof Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, does not physically exist; reversing Michelson's experiment, using the earth's daily and yearly motions, does not change the fact that light propagates in vacuum that is void of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter, which has precedence over Michelson's experiment since the glass vacuum tube experiment cannot be reversed. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system is used to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether, composed of matter. 

 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#399898

numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:

> Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly tangential
> velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of Michelson's
> experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether, composed
> of matter.

Nonsense.  First of all, while Lorentz transformations are used in the 
theories of relativity as a mathematical tool (that, it turned out, results 
*naturally* from the principle of relativity), Lorentz *Ether Theory* *has 
nothing to do* with the theories of relativity.  It is an *alternative* 
theory (postulated, by Lorentz, shortly *before* special relativity, by 
Einstein) that made extraneous assumptions: an ether medium that cannot be 
detected yet is supposed to be transformable and thus have measurable 
effects.  Shortly after, Lorentz and Poincaré had to incorporate the 
principle of relativity into their "ether" theories to make their 
predictions match experimental results, making them indistinguishable from 
special relativity.

The application of Occam’s razor has led to modern physics rejecting the 
idea of such an ether.

You really should *read* what you are talking about some time.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#399939

On 27/11/16 23:55, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly tangential
>> velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of Michelson's
>> experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether, composed
>> of matter.
>
> Nonsense.  First of all, while Lorentz transformations are used in the
> theories of relativity as a mathematical tool (that, it turned out, results
> *naturally* from the principle of relativity), Lorentz *Ether Theory* *has
> nothing to do* with the theories of relativity.  It is an *alternative*
> theory (postulated, by Lorentz, shortly *before* special relativity, by
> Einstein) that made extraneous assumptions: an ether medium that cannot be
> detected yet is supposed to be transformable and thus have measurable
> effects.  Shortly after, Lorentz and Poincaré had to incorporate the
> principle of relativity into their "ether" theories to make their
> predictions match experimental results, making them indistinguishable from
> special relativity.
>
> The application of Occam’s razor has led to modern physics rejecting the
> idea of such an ether.
>
> You really should *read* what you are talking about some time.

So should you. The Relativity principle follows directly from LET, with 
its bogus contraction idea. It was discovered by Poincare and a few 
others before Einstein jumped on the bandwagon and realized that the 
aether did not play any apparent part in the maths and therefore could 
be declared superfluous. It DID however play a vital part in the 
physics, that of unifying all light speeds. Einstein merely replaced 
that function with a few word in a postulate.
SR clearly relies on the existence of the supposed absolute aether and 
is no different from LET. Einstein was a clever plagiarist who had the 
backing of a few influential people....and still is.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#The_shift_to_relativity>
>


-- 

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

#399949

On 11/27/16 11/27/16   2:21 PM, HGW wrote:
> The Relativity principle follows directly from LET, with its
> bogus contraction idea. It was discovered by Poincare and a few others

Once again Wilson displays his ENORMOUS ignorance of basic physics, and also of 
basic history.

LET does not obey the relativity principle, which can in no way "follow 
directly" from LET.

In actual fact, Galileo first enunciated the principle of relativity, and it 
"comes from" his investigations and from Newtonian mechanics. This is several 
centuries before LET.

Wilson repeatedly shows that he simply does not understand basic physics. Or 
basic history. Then he references a Wikipedia article that discusses almost the 
exact opposite of what he claims.

Tom Roberts

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

#400080

On 28/11/16 09:10, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/27/16 11/27/16   2:21 PM, HGW wrote:
>> The Relativity principle follows directly from LET, with its
>> bogus contraction idea. It was discovered by Poincare and a few others
>
> Once again Wilson displays his ENORMOUS ignorance of basic physics, and
> also of basic history.
>
> LET does not obey the relativity principle, which can in no way "follow
> directly" from LET.

The Fitzgerald/Lorentz contraction concept ensured that all OWLS 
measurements would always produce the value c BUT ONLY BECAUSE THE 
AETHER HAD UNIFIED ALL SPEEDS. LET also recognized that clock 
syncronization was a problem. Combining that with the contraction 
enabled Poincare to come up with a relativistic theory that was 
virtually identical to Einstein's SR, which was obviously plagiarized.

> In actual fact, Galileo first enunciated the principle of relativity,
> and it "comes from" his investigations and from Newtonian mechanics.
> This is several centuries before LET.
>
> Wilson repeatedly shows that he simply does not understand basic
> physics. Or basic history. Then he references a Wikipedia article that
> discusses almost the exact opposite of what he claims.

I don't bother with Wiki articles that are written by Tom Roberts. There 
are plenty of others that reveal true facts. Maybe you should read some 
of them.

> Tom Roberts


-- 

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

#400166

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly tangential
>> velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of Michelson's
>> experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether,
>> composed of matter.
> 
> Nonsense.  First of all, while Lorentz transformations are used in the
> theories of relativity as a mathematical tool (that, it turned out,

bullshit

> results *naturally* from the principle of relativity), Lorentz *Ether
> Theory* *has nothing to do* with the theories of relativity.  It is an

now you contradict yourself, buuuullshit!

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

#400179 — Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good))

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Reggie Sippel":

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly tangential
>>> velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of Michelson's
>>> experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical ether,
>>> composed of matter.
>> 
>> Nonsense.  First of all, while Lorentz transformations are used in the
>> theories of relativity as a mathematical tool (that, it turned out,
> 
> bullshit

No, see e.g.

Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”.

,-<https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
| 
| […]
| 
| § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a
|      Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation
|      Relatively to the Former
| 
| […]
|   Substituting for x' its value, we obtain
| 
|     τ = φ(v)β(t−vx/c²),
|     ξ = φ(v)β(x−vt),
|     η = φ(v)y,
|     ζ = φ(v)z,
| 
| where
| 
|     β = 1∕√(1 − v²/c²)
| 
| and φ is an as yet unknown function of v.  […]

β is nothing else than the Lorentz factor, occurring as the Greek symbol or 
as the fraction on the right-hand side all over the place in that paper.

| § 9. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations when Convection-
|      Currents are Taken into Account
| 
| […] If we imagine the electric charges to be invariably coupled to small
| rigid bodies (ions, electrons), these equations are the electromagnetic
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| basis of the Lorentzian electrodynamics and optics of moving bodies. […]
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| […]
|    ρ' = […]
|       = β(1-u_xv/c²)ρ.
| 
| Since—as follows from the theorem of addition of velocities (§ 5)—the 
| vector u_ξ, u_η, u_ζ is nothing else than the velocity of the electric 
| charge, measured in the system k, we have the proof that, on the basis
| of our kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz's 
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| principle of relativity.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
By which Einstein is really saying that one can arrive at the same equations 
as Lorentz did, but *without* assuming an contractible ether, and *only* 
with the principle of relativity and the measured constant speed of light, 
as postulates.

>> results *naturally* from the principle of relativity), Lorentz *Ether
>> Theory* *has nothing to do* with the theories of relativity.  It is an
> 
> now you contradict yourself,

I am not.

> buuuullshit!  [+ unannounced F'up2 alt.morons]

*PLONK*

F'up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#400186 — Re: Lorentz transformations (was: Lorentz (Pussy smells sooo good))

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Reggie Sippel":
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Lorentz transformation (relativity) uses the earth's yearly
>>>> tangential velocity vector px in the reversal the negative result of
>>>> Michelson's experiment to justify the existence of Fresnel's optical
>>>> ether, composed of matter.
>>> 
>>> Nonsense.  First of all, while Lorentz transformations are used in the
>>> theories of relativity as a mathematical tool (that, it turned out,
>> 
>> bullshit
> 
> No, see e.g.

Nothing

>>> results *naturally* from the principle of relativity), Lorentz *Ether
>>> Theory* *has nothing to do* with the theories of relativity.  It is an
>> 
>> now you contradict yourself,
> 
> I am not.

So you are so stupid not seeing the obvious contradiction, making a fool 
of yourself? Good, nobody will talk to you from now on. You are ways too 
stupid.

***  P L I N K !  ***

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

#400195 — Re: Lorentz transformations

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Julian Alewine":

> […]

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#400194 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 30/11/16 02:28, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Reggie Sippel":

> | theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with
> the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
| principle of relativity.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> By which Einstein is really saying that one can arrive at the same
> equations as Lorentz did, but *without* assuming an contractible
> ether, and *only* with the principle of relativity and the measured
> constant speed of light, as postulates.

The postulate states that light speed is independent of source speed.
That directly assumes the existence of the absolute aether.
Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate and
rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET.
Einstein did nothing new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.

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

#400200 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:04:39 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>
> The postulate states that light speed is independent of source speed.
> That directly assumes the existence of the absolute aether.

Only to a severely delusional mind.

> Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate and
> rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET.
> Einstein did nothing new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.

Henry (a.k.a., delusional Ralphie-boy) is the REAL charlatan here.  He
plagiarized a diploma by one Henry Wilson.

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

#400229 — Re: Lorentz transformations

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:04:39 AM UTC-7, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:

>> Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate and
>> rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET.
>> Einstein did nothing new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.

>Henry (a.k.a., delusional Ralphie-boy) is the REAL charlatan here.  He
>plagiarized a diploma by one Henry Wilson.

No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's diploma.
And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the original diploma
belongs to.

(it's interesting that Ralph has since changed his middle initial)

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

#400335 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 30/11/16 08:03, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate
>>> and rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET. Einstein did nothing
>>> new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.
>
>> Henry (a.k.a., delusional Ralphie-boy) is the REAL charlatan here.
>> He plagiarized a diploma by one Henry Wilson.
>
> No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's
> diploma. And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the
> original diploma belongs to.

Ok, Moron-y. I will confess. I DID doctor my credentials. The Degree and
Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.

> (it's interesting that Ralph has since changed his middle initial)
>

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

#400345 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 11/30/2016 10:41 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> The Degree and
> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.

If "Rabbo" is Ralph Rabbidge, he must be buried in the basement because 
the government doesn't know he's dead. Are you squatting in his old 
residence?

Or, alternatively, when you say he "passed a way", is that a euphemism 
for a multiple-personality dominance thing?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400379 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 01/12/16 04:17, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 10:41 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> The Degree and
>> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
>> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years
>> ago.
>
> If "Rabbo" is Ralph Rabbidge, he must be buried in the basement because
> the government doesn't know he's dead. Are you squatting in his old
> residence?
>
> Or, alternatively, when you say he "passed a way", is that a euphemism
> for a multiple-personality dominance thing?

I consider this matter now closed.



-- 

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

#400383 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 11/30/2016 3:44 PM, HGW wrote:
> On 01/12/16 04:17, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 10:41 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>>> The Degree and
>>> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
>>> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years
>>> ago.
>>
>> If "Rabbo" is Ralph Rabbidge, he must be buried in the basement because
>> the government doesn't know he's dead. Are you squatting in his old
>> residence?
>>
>> Or, alternatively, when you say he "passed a way", is that a euphemism
>> for a multiple-personality dominance thing?
>
> I consider this matter now closed.
>

Which personality considers it closed again? Do the others agree?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#400385 — Re: Lorentz transformations

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 30/11/16 08:03, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>> Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate
>>>> and rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET. Einstein did nothing
>>>> new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.
>>
>>> Henry (a.k.a., delusional Ralphie-boy) is the REAL charlatan here.
>>> He plagiarized a diploma by one Henry Wilson.
>>
>> No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's
>> diploma. And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the
>> original diploma belongs to.

>Ok, Moron-y. I will confess. I DID doctor my credentials. The Degree and
>Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
>once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.

Very interesting.  So why did you do such a thing?
And why do you call yourself "Doctor" if you know the degree/diploma
are all fake and belong to "Rabbo"?

So tell us, how did "Rabbo" pass away? Did you bury him in the basement?

>> (it's interesting that Ralph has since changed his middle initial)
>>

What did the "M" stand for?

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

#400434 — Re: Lorentz transformations

On 01/12/16 09:08, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>>> No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's
>>> diploma. And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the
>>> original diploma belongs to.
>
>> Ok, Moron-y. I will confess. I DID doctor my credentials. The Degree and
>> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
>> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.
>
> Very interesting.  So why did you do such a thing?
> And why do you call yourself "Doctor" if you know the degree/diploma
> are all fake and belong to "Rabbo"?
>
> So tell us, how did "Rabbo" pass away? Did you bury him in the basement?
>
>>> (it's interesting that Ralph has since changed his middle initial)
>>>
>
> What did the "M" stand for?

This matter is now closed.



-- 

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

#400474 — Re: Lorentz transformations

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 01/12/16 09:08, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>>>> No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's
>>>> diploma. And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the
>>>> original diploma belongs to.
>>
>>> Ok, Moron-y. I will confess. I DID doctor my credentials. The Degree and
>>> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
>>> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.
>>
>> Very interesting.  So why did you do such a thing?
>> And why do you call yourself "Doctor" if you know the degree/diploma
>> are all fake and belong to "Rabbo"?
>>
>> So tell us, how did "Rabbo" pass away? Did you bury him in the basement?
>>
>>>> (it's interesting that Ralph has since changed his middle initial)
>>>>
>>
>> What did the "M" stand for?

>This matter is now closed.

No, I didn't close this matter. It's just getting interesting.  Many of us
are curious about this whole Henry Wilson/Ralph Rabbidge thing, what is
really going on.  What did you mean that Rabbo "passed a way"? Was Rabbo
a separate person or a personality permanantly repressed? Are there other
personalities? Perhaps "Henri M. Wilson" or was that just a nymshift?
Speaking of nymshifts, I wondered for a moment if the nymshifting troll
was another bunch of your personalities as he also posts through aioe,
but no, he's not a native English speaker. His first language is probably
from eastern Europe.

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

#400507 — Re: Lorentz transformations

Le 30/11/2016 à 17:41, HGWilson, DSc. a écrit :
> On 30/11/16 08:03, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>>> Einstein then produced the maths theory that fitted the postulate
>>>> and rediscovered Poincare's upgrade of LET. Einstein did nothing
>>>> new. He was a plagiarizing charlatan.
>>
>>> Henry (a.k.a., delusional Ralphie-boy) is the REAL charlatan here.
>>> He plagiarized a diploma by one Henry Wilson.
>>
>> No, he photoshopped the name "Henry M. Wilson" over someone else's
>> diploma. And did a piss-poor job doing so.  We don't know who the
>> original diploma belongs to.
>
> Ok, Moron-y. I will confess. I DID doctor my credentials. The Degree and
> Diploma I faked were actually those of my old colleague 'Rabbo', who
> once regularly posted to this NG but sadly passed a way several years ago.

http://tinypic.com/r/207s07d/9

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web