Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #421678 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-05 22:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 53 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Reality versus Math Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-05 22:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:56 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 02:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math einstein.groupie69@gmail.com - 2017-06-06 09:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Wozniak <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:32 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 11:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernardin Regoire <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 15:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 06:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 12:16 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:18 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 14:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:26 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 09:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 11:56 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 13:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-08 21:00 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 16:35 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:00 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 14:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 17:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 21:41 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 21:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohcdtv$h8q$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #421991 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >> > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >> > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >> > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >> > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >> > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >> > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >> > > every high school graduate might know. >> > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects >> > to explain the processes of nature. For example: >> > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> > But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space >> for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- >> dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a >> "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics >> from 18th and 19th century. >All these are mathematical curiosities.....all the processes of nature can >be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But that's part of Model Mechanics, and since you know that Model Mechanics is a total failure, there probably is something to these extra dimensions. After all, if Model Mechanics says something is false, there's a really good chance that that something is true. >> > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >> This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there >> was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse >> philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific >> ones (a common error around here). >The point is: There is no need for an abstract model. The math of QM can be > explained by a real physical model. No, Stupid Ken. Just because you can't do mathematics, not even (-6)/(-2), doesn't mean that real physicists can't use mathematics to solve problems of physics. >> > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed >> > of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >> No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn't have to be. >But time is absolute..... No, Stupid Ken. Maybe Model Mechanics says time is absolute, but nobody cares since Model Mechanics is an absolute failure. <set autism=on> >the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as follows: >The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. >This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage >of a standard ground clock second.....IOW, the redefined GPS second contains >the same amount of absolute time as a standard ground clock second. <set autism=off> Ken, why do you autistically repeat the same incorrect phrases over and over again, practically word for word, when many people have told you many many times that is simply wrong? There is no such thing as a redefined GPS second, and you know it. The GPS does prove, however, that time is not absolute. >Also the math of LT confirm the existence of absolute time according to the >following equation: No, Stupid Ken, it does not. Many people have told you to learn SR and GR first before spewing incorrect kooky crap. >> > Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these >> > non-existing mathematical objects And Model Mechanics is well-known for being a total, absolute failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohcfu4$1jof$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421991 |
On 6/8/17 3:30 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>>>>>> :)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>>>>>> spitting. >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What else can you do >>>>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is >>>>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex >>>>> exponential). >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >>>> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >>>> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >>>> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >>>> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >>>> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >>>> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >>>> every high school graduate might know. >>> >>> No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: >>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> >> Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space >> for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- >> dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a >> "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics >> from 18th and 19th century. > > All these are mathematical curiosities.....all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Not with calculational predictions that are good to 12 decimal places. Explain the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, Ken, and show how it can be calculated to 12 digit accuracy, compared to experiment. > >>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >> >> This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there >> was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse >> philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific >> ones (a common error around here). > > The point is: There is no need for an abstract model. The math of QM can be explained by a real physical model. This is what I was referring to earlier. You want physics to be accessible and easily understandable to all, and so you want to claim there's a way to do it without math, without calculations, without unusual ideas. Because you want so badly for everyday people to be able to understanding things without training in physics. Because it bothers the hell out of you that you cannot make head nor tails of what's written in physics books. And so you find that offensive to the point of needing to be replaced. > >> >>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >> >> No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn’t have to be. > > But time is absolute.....the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as follows: The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second.....IOW, the redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as a standard ground clock second. > > Also the math of LT confirm the existence of absolute time according to the following equation: > Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) > What this equation says is that Delta(t’) contains the same amount of absolute time as gamma*Delta(t) Ken, you have no idea what these equations say, and so you make shit up. > >> >>> Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these non-existing mathematical objects >> >> Model Mechanics did eliminate them and is also worthless junk. >> >> -- >> Jan -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0dce19a-0022-4109-bb10-a105f730304a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421991 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > >>>>>>> :)) > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > > > > >>>>>> spitting. > > > > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "Unplonk" > > > > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> What else can you do > > > > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > > > >>>> stupid. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > > > > >>> knowledge. > > > > >> > > > > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > > > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > > > > exponential). > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > > > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > > > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > > > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > > > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > > > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > > > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > > > > every high school graduate might know. > > > > > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: > > > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > > > Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space > > for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- > > dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a > > "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics > > from 18th and 19th century. > > All these are mathematical curiosities..... I don't know what you mean by "curiosities". They no more "non-existing" than any other mathematical model (including the ones you approve of). It's rather obvious that what you declare "curiosities" are simply concepts you didn't study and don't understand. > all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows that. Besides, there are problems that can be solved only by applying those more complicated tools that you don't like. For example, one would not discover Carter's constant of motion without Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of mechanics despite the fact that - conceptually - all those "fancy" formulations are really different ways of writing "F = ma". So these sophisticated tools are _indispensable_. > > > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. > > > > This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there > > was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse > > philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific > > ones (a common error around here). > > The point is: There is no need for an abstract model. The math of QM can be explained by a real physical model. It only seems so to you because you haven't studied the subject. Everything always appears easy to the uninitiated. > > > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. > > > > No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn’t have to be. > > But time is absolute..... How do you know? > the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as follows: Forgive me if I ignore this. You have a LOT to learn. In the meantime, stop wasting your life away on junk pseudoscience. There are better things you can do with your life. Leave physics to others. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 00:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d45ba5b-f270-488b-9afd-cfa7bfdacc2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421994 |
W dniu piątek, 9 czerwca 2017 00:00:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > I don't know what you mean by "curiosities". Of course you don't. > > all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows that. YOU don't know that, poor idiot. > Besides, there are problems that > can be solved only by applying those more complicated tools that you > don't like. Or, at least, you don't know how to solve them otherwise. > > But time is absolute..... > > How do you know? By definition, poor idiot. And by functionality. Nothing you could possibly understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb0d6962-9496-49f7-9508-ab43200da665@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422031 |
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 12:16:02 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu piątek, 9 czerwca 2017 00:00:37 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > I don't know what you mean by "curiosities". > > Of course you don't. I noticed every time I start a sentence with "I don't know..." you pounce on it as if it was the intended literal meaning. You really cannot read any metaphor or simile. > > > all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > > > Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows that. > > YOU don't know that, poor idiot. Lose "poor idiot", it makes you look childish and without arguments. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <772e01b0-7d81-4676-9d72-6cf26495a464@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421994 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:00:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > > >>>>>>> :)) > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > > > > > >>>>>> spitting. > > > > > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> "Unplonk" > > > > > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > > > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> What else can you do > > > > > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > > > > >>>> stupid. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > > > > > >>> knowledge. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > > > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > > > > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > > > > > exponential). > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > > > > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > > > > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > > > > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > > > > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > > > > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > > > > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > > > > > every high school graduate might know. > > > > > > > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: > > > > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > > > > > Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space > > > for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- > > > dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a > > > "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics > > > from 18th and 19th century. > > > > All these are mathematical curiosities..... > > I don't know what you mean by "curiosities". They no more "non-existing" > than any other mathematical model (including the ones you approve of). > It's rather obvious that what you declare "curiosities" are simply concepts > you didn’t study and don't understand. Extra dimensions do not exit. The inventor of the math assigned the different parameters in the math as extra non-existing different dimensions. These different parameters should have origin from a real physical model. The E-Matrix in my theory can provide such physical model. The different geometries in the E-Matrix--caused by the motions of the interacting particles in the E-matrix--are the different parameters in the equation. > > > all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > Maybe, maybe not. Nobody knows that. Besides, there are problems that > can be solved only by applying those more complicated tools that you > don't like. No.... the absolute motions of the interacting particles (or objects) that cause the different geometries in the E-Matrix, will provide all the needed tools to explain all the parameters in the equation. >For example, one would not discover Carter's constant of > motion without Hamilton-Jacobi formulation of mechanics despite the > fact that - conceptually - all those "fancy" formulations are really > different ways of writing "F = ma". So these sophisticated tools are > _indispensable_. > > > > > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. > > > > > > This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there > > > was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse > > > philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific > > > ones (a common error around here). > > > > The point is: There is no need for an abstract model. The math of QM can be explained by a real physical model. > > It only seems so to you because you haven't studied the subject. Everything > always appears easy to the uninitiated. Why do I need to study the more complicated model when I have a more simpler model that can do the job? > > > > > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. > > > > > > No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn’t have to be. > > > > But time is absolute..... > > How do you know? > > > the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as follows: > > Forgive me if I ignore this. You have a LOT to learn. In the meantime, > stop wasting your life away on junk pseudoscience. There are better things > you can do with your life. Leave physics to others. You ignore my explanation of absolute time speaks volume....the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS clock with the ground clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 08:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c8cc25e-bd3b-448d-8d47-27ed96c9453d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422054 |
Kenseto wrote Extra dimensions do not exit. The inventor of the math assigned the different parameters in the math as extra non-existing different dimensions. These different parameters should have origin from a real physical model. The E-Matrix in my theory can provide such physical model. The "Setonian E-Matrix" had been Superseded by "Lord Kronos Prime Super Fluid Universal Luminiferous Medium" https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e84a42d2-80a4-4769-b72c-e09fa4edecff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422054 |
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:25:05 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:00:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:30:16 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > > > >>>>>>> :)) > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > > > > > > >>>>>> spitting. > > > > > > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> "Unplonk" > > > > > > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > > > > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> What else can you do > > > > > > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > > > > > >>>> stupid. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > > > > > > >>> knowledge. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > > > > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > > > > > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > > > > > > exponential). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > > > > > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > > > > > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > > > > > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > > > > > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > > > > > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > > > > > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > > > > > > every high school graduate might know. > > > > > > > > > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: > > > > > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > > > > > > > Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space > > > > for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- > > > > dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a > > > > "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics > > > > from 18th and 19th century. > > > > > > All these are mathematical curiosities..... > > > > I don't know what you mean by "curiosities". They no more "non-existing" > > than any other mathematical model (including the ones you approve of). > > It's rather obvious that what you declare "curiosities" are simply concepts > > you didn’t study and don't understand. > > Extra dimensions do not exit. Maybe, maybe not. You constantly mix science with philosophy and whenever a difficult philosophical question presents itself, you assume this is a problem of physics. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohebne$c9k$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421994 |
JanPB wrote: >> the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as >> follows: > > Forgive me if I ignore this. You have a LOT to learn. In the meantime, > stop wasting your life away on junk pseudoscience. There are better > things you can do with your life. Leave physics to others. What do you have against the others, by wishing wasting their each own individually time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 17:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f30a259b-6da5-468e-be1d-40fe03e5b36d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421754 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:42:31 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > > > > Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > > > > > > The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > > > > > > seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better wording would be > > > > > > > > "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > > > > > as theories are reality models, > > > > > > > > involving mathematical description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > > > > your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > > > > very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > > > > a collection of prejudices". > > > > > > > > > > > > "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > > > > > > > You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > > As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > > > > > You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > :)) > > > > > > You really can do nothing except raving and > > > spitting. > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > "Unplonk" > > I have no idea about relativity. > > Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do > meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > stupid. You're dumber than shit. And everyone here knows it! LOL :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 21:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <593759e8$0$18658$b1db1813$65575428@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #421782 |
On 6/6/2017 8:15 PM, Groupie wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:42:31 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>> >>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>> :)) >>>> >>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>> spitting. >>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>> >>> "Unplonk" >>> I have no idea about relativity. >> >> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >> >> >>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >> >> Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do >> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >> stupid. > > You're dumber than shit. > And everyone here knows it! > LOL :) > I love an intelligent discussion of math and science. Some excellent points made here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a03c0670-8318-4d4a-9e5b-0eabde0f6498@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421782 |
W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 02:15:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:42:31 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > > > > > Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > > > > > > > The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > > > > > > > seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better wording would be > > > > > > > > > "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > > > > > > as theories are reality models, > > > > > > > > > involving mathematical description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > > > > > your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > > > > > very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > > > > > a collection of prejudices". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > > > As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > > > > > > > You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > > :)) > > > > > > > > You really can do nothing except raving and > > > > spitting. > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > "Unplonk" > > > I have no idea about relativity. > > > > Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > > > > But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do > > meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > stupid. > > You're dumber than shit. > And everyone here knows it! > LOL :) Rave, moron, and spit. You can do nothing more, and everyone here knows it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <963b6ba8-4547-47a3-a096-67690662ccce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421794 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:58 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 02:15:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 8:42:31 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > > > > > > > > Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > > > > > > > > > The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > > > > > > > > > seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Better wording would be > > > > > > > > > > "Reality versus physical theories", > > > > > > > > > > as theories are reality models, > > > > > > > > > > involving mathematical description. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > > > > > > > your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > > > > > > > very important part. Because "common sense is > > > > > > > > > a collection of prejudices". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You're dumber than dirt." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > > > > > As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > > > > :)) > > > > > > > > > > You really can do nothing except raving and > > > > > spitting. > > > > > As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > > > > > > "Unplonk" > > > > I have no idea about relativity. > > > > > > Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > > > > > > > > But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > > You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > > > > Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do > > > meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > > stupid. > > > > You're dumber than shit. > > And everyone here knows it! > > LOL :) > > Rave, moron, and spit. You can do nothing more, > and everyone here knows it. He was neither raving nor spitting, he merely observed that your posts here are mostly idiocies. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web