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

Groups > sci.physics > #605590 > unrolled thread

Re: This is your guru

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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.

Contents

  Re: This is your guru Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 20:32 +0000
    Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-20 15:54 -0800
      Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0000
        Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-21 19:16 -0800
          Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 10:39 +0000
            Re: This is your guru Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 11:24 +0000
              Re: This is your guru Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-11-22 12:13 +0000
            Re: This is your guru benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:37 -0500
            Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-22 22:57 -0800
              Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 13:37 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:27 +0000
                  Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 14:56 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Steven Carlip <carlip@physics.ucdavis.edu> - 2016-11-23 10:46 -0800
                  Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:21 +0100
                    Re: This is your guru Bob Goodman <bobg@boobgodman.info> - 2016-11-23 22:58 +0000
                      Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-25 20:00 +0100
              Re: This is your guru john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 05:39 -0800
                Re: This is your guru Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:25 +0100
                  Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:28 +0000
                    Re: This is your guru Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 19:37 +0100
                      Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 18:39 +0000
                Re: This is your guru edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:51 -0800
              Re: This is your guru Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:24 -0600
                Re: This is your guru Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-23 15:33 +0000
                Re: This is your guru Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-23 23:23 +0100
                  Re: This is your guru john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:58 -0800
              Re: This is your guru edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 10:49 -0800
        Re: This is your guru poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 01:51 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#605590 — Re: This is your guru

Steven Carlip wrote:

>>> In General Relativity, CHANGES in gravity due to the motion of a mass
>>> are propagated with speed c at distances in the "far zone" (i.e.
>>> distance >>
>>
>> There is nothing in GR specifying or demanding the above.
> 
> Of course there is.  For weak fields, Einstein already showed
> that this was a consequence of the field equations in 1916.
> The proof is simple enough -- you can find it in any GR textbook.
> For strong fields, you have to be a little careful about how to
> describe a change in gravity, but there's a nice general proof
> by Low, Class. Quant. Grav. 16 (1999) 543-549, arXiv:gr-qc/9812067.

What fields, GR is not about fields. Reread your books immediately. What 
Einstein did then was strongly presumable something under his Aether 
umbrella. You too misunderstood the entire process.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#605623

On 11/20/16 12:32 PM, Norberto Haman wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:

>>>> In General Relativity, CHANGES in gravity due to the motion of
>>>> a mass are propagated with speed c at distances in the "far
>>>> zone" (i.e. distance >>

>>> There is nothing in GR specifying or demanding the above.

>> Of course there is.  For weak fields, Einstein already showed that
>> this was a consequence of the field equations in 1916. The proof is
>> simple enough -- you can find it in any GR textbook. For strong
>> fields, you have to be a little careful about how to describe a
>> change in gravity, but there's a nice general proof by Low, Class.
>> Quant. Grav. 16 (1999) 543-549, arXiv:gr-qc/9812067.

> What fields, GR is not about fields. Reread your books immediately.
> What Einstein did then was strongly presumable something under his
> Aether umbrella. You too misunderstood the entire process.

Let me make three suggestions:

1. Learn what the word "field" means in physics.

2. Before you start talking about what Einstein did, read a little
Einstein.  You could start with the basic paper on GR, Die Grundlage
der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie -- there's a nice English
translation on wikisource.  You might appreciate section 3, "The
Theory of the Gravitation-Field," with subsections like "Expression
for the field-components of gravitation" and "Hamiltonian Function
for the Gravitation-field."  Then, once you've actually read Einstein,
you can come back and explain how GR isn't about fields and how he
just misunderstood it.

3. Try responding to content, rather than looking for semantic tricks.

Steve Carlip

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

#605686

Steven Carlip wrote:

>> What fields, GR is not about fields. Reread your books immediately.
>> What Einstein did then was strongly presumable something under his
>> Aether umbrella. You too misunderstood the entire process.
> 
> Let me make three suggestions:
> 1. Learn what the word "field" means in physics.

Irrelevant to the subject, but did you?

> 2. Before you start talking about what Einstein did, read a little
> Einstein.  You could start with the basic paper on GR, Die Grundlage der

Nothing

> 3. Try responding to content, rather than looking for semantic tricks.
> Steve Carlip

I would opt for 3. if I were you.

On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since is a 
geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a shadow. No 
matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will never leave 
the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to Matter/Mass 
what a Shadow is for an opaque object.

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

#605835

On 11/21/16 7:00 AM, Maryann Tonn wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:

>> 3. Try responding to content, rather than looking for semantic tricks.

> I would opt for 3. if I were you.

Excellent!  We agree.  So here's what to do -- look at the paper
by Low that I cited (online at https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9812067),
read it, and tell me specifically where you think he made a mistake.

> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since is a
> geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a shadow. No
> matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will never leave
> the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to Matter/Mass
> what a Shadow is for an opaque object.

Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head
is casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
do you think the shadow moves instantaneously?

Steve Carlip

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

#605869

Steven Carlip wrote:

>> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since
>> is a geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a
>> shadow. No matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will
>> never leave the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to
>> Matter/Mass what a Shadow is for an opaque object.
> 
> Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head is
> casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
> do you think the shadow moves instantaneously? Steve Carlip

Nonsense. The point you fail to catch, is that the shadow, your head's 
projection, the geometry, NEVER leaves your head, as your Gravity "field" 
supposedly does by travelling "in waves" from your head to another head.

Make the shadow of your head leave your head, then you might start to make 
sense. Pleas, read more books.

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

#605871

paparios wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:39:51 AM UTC-3, Maryann Tonn wrote:
>> Steven Carlip wrote:
>> 
>> >> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed,
>> >> since is a geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the
>> >> projection of a shadow. No matter how fast or slow you shake your
>> >> head, its shadow will never leave the association with your head.
>> >> Your gravity "field" is to Matter/Mass what a Shadow is for an
>> >> opaque object.
>> > 
>> > Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head
>> > is casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
>> > do you think the shadow moves instantaneously? Steve Carlip
>> 
>> Nonsense. The point you fail to catch, is that the shadow, your head's
>> projection, the geometry, NEVER leaves your head, as your Gravity
>> "field" supposedly does by travelling "in waves" from your head to
>> another head.
>> 
>> Make the shadow of your head leave your head, then you might start to
>> make sense. Pleas, read more books.
> 
> Time to change your name again...troll.

Nothing beats a stupid troll popping in calling others trolls. I've been 
been here for a short while, and I noticed these trolls exhibiting various 
grade of stupidity. (Not in alphabetical order)

paparios (!? real name)
Paul B. Anderson
Odd Bodkin (!?)
Poutnik (not a troll, but really stupid)

Have a nice day.

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

#605872

Maryann Tonn wrote:

----snip----

> Nothing beats a stupid troll popping in calling others trolls.
> I've been here for a short while, and I noticed these trolls
> exhibiting various grade of stupidity. (Not in alphabetical order)
>
> paparios (!? real name)
> Paul B. Anderson
> Odd Bodkin (!?)
> Poutnik (not a troll, but really stupid)

Bodkin's not a troll.

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

#606010

On 11/22/2016 5:39 AM, Maryann Tonn wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:
>
>>> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since
>>> is a geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a
>>> shadow. No matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will
>>> never leave the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to
>>> Matter/Mass what a Shadow is for an opaque object.
>>
>> Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head is
>> casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
>> do you think the shadow moves instantaneously? Steve Carlip
>
> Nonsense. The point you fail to catch, is that the shadow, your head's
> projection, the geometry, NEVER leaves your head, as your Gravity "field"
> supposedly does by travelling "in waves" from your head to another head.
>
> Make the shadow of your head leave your head, then you might start to make
> sense. Pleas, read more books.
>
Gravity works by shadows, Maryann. Books don't explain it. You been 
taking lessons from Boinker?

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

#606076

On 11/22/16 2:39 AM, Maryann Tonn wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:

>>> On to the subject, gravity cannot possibly travel at any speed, since
>>> is a geometry, curvature in GR, hence similar to the projection of a
>>> shadow. No matter how fast or slow you shake your head, its shadow will
>>> never leave the association with your head. Your gravity "field" is to
>>> Matter/Mass what a Shadow is for an opaque object.

>> Not the best analogy, but it will do for a start.  Suppose your head is
>> casting a shadow on a wall a meter away.  When you move your head,
>> do you think the shadow moves instantaneously? Steve Carlip

> Nonsense. The point you fail to catch, is that the shadow, your head's
> projection, the geometry, NEVER leaves your head, as your Gravity "field"
> supposedly does by travelling "in waves" from your head to another head.

You want to change the subject again?  OK, we can do that.

As I said, a shadow isn't the best analogy, but it will do.  I notice
that you didn't answer my question, so let me answer it for you.  If
your head casts a shadow on a wall a meter away and you move your head,
the shadow won't move instantaneously -- it will move about three
nanoseconds later.  (The light that has already passed your head will
keep going, and will take about three nanoseconds to reach the wall;
it's only after that's happened that the shadow will move.)

So now, move your head and then quickly move it back again to its
starting position.  One meter away, your shadow will be suddenly
wiggle three nanoseconds after you've moved your head, and then
return to its original position.  Two meters away, your shadow will
be still for six nanoseconds, then suddenly wiggle, then return to
its original position.  Three meters way, the same thing will happen
after nine nanoseconds.  The wiggle in your shadow will continue to
propagate out at the speed of light as long as there's a shadow at
all.

You can say that the shadow is still attached to your head, and in
some sense that's true, but it's attached to where your head was
in the past, not to where it is now.  Once the wiggle in your
shadow has started out, you can't call it back; you can make more
wiggles by moving your head more, but the original won't be affected.
The changing pattern of light that you initiated by wiggling your
head has escaped you, and is traveling off at the speed of light;
it's beyond your command.

Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one
number ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and
there are conservation laws that come in, so you get things like
quadrupole radiation and velocity-dependent effects.  But the
basic idea is the same.

As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
real name, I'll be happy to credit you.

Steve Carlip

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

#606093

Steven Carlip wrote:

> Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one number
> ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and there are
> conservation laws that come in, so you get things like quadrupole
> radiation and velocity-dependent effects.  But the basic idea is the
> same.
> 
> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the next
> time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your real name,
> I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip

In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced. As 
you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that it 
is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. However yes, the 
physicality of the world may materialize in this way into the geometry as 
a theoretical domain. Very funny indeed. I haver no idea. Thanks.

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

#606101

paparios wrote:

>> > As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
>> > next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your real
>> > name, I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip
>> 
>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced.
>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is
>> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. However yes,
>> the physicality of the world may materialize in this way into the
>> geometry as a theoretical domain. Very funny indeed. I haver no idea.
>> Thanks.
> 
> For sure you do not have idea. You even do not know what your name
> is...troll

Hey pap, Dr. Steve just mentioned he'll give credit to Dr. Maryann in his 
lectures. Who is the troll now, as correctly mentioned earlier by others, 
that is YOU, a cretin, probably gotten a diploma and everybody are asking 
why!! Thanks you stupidingly great!!

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

#606107

paparios wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:27:02 AM UTC-3, Dusty Kollman
> wrote:
>> paparios wrote:
>> 
>> >> > As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
>> >> > next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
>> >> > real name, I'll be happy to credit you. Steve Carlip
>> >> 
>> >> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not
>> >> convinced.
>> >> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is
>> >> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow. However
>> >> yes, the physicality of the world may materialize in this way into
>> >> the geometry as a theoretical domain. Very funny indeed. I haver no
>> >> idea. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > For sure you do not have idea. You even do not know what your name
>> > is...troll
>> 
>> Hey pap, Dr. Steve just mentioned he'll give credit to Dr. Maryann in
>> his lectures. Who is the troll now, as correctly mentioned earlier by
>> others,
>> that is YOU, a cretin, probably gotten a diploma and everybody are
>> asking why!! Thanks you stupidingly great!!
> 
> There is no Dr Maryann, which by the way is other of your stupid names 
> Your "Dusty" address is IhXXGyXTgisY5KLK9expvA.user.gioia.aioe.org
> Marathon address is  BR2gIOinywZYrh92MehZYA.user.gioia.aioe.org 
> The same as all the dozen identities you assume.

Than you contradict yourself again, pap. You can't be so stupid not seeing 
you are contradicting yourself. One of the difference between you and us, 
some others around here, is that I'm never keen declaring that I'm stupid 
when I am really, really stupid. 

You never declare that you are stupid, pap. An eventually clear indicator, 
that you sold your people and your country for a piece of worthless paper. 
A diploma, in case that you got such one.

Btw, aioe.org is a public server, available to millions in Physics. Have a 
nice day.

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

#606168

On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
> Steven Carlip wrote:

>> Gravity is a little more complicated -- it takes more than one number
>> ("how much light") to describe spacetime curvature, and there are
>> conservation laws that come in, so you get things like quadrupole
>> radiation and velocity-dependent effects.  But the basic idea is the
>> same.

[...]
> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced. As
> you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that it
> is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.

Good.  You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
it as a starting point for learning more.

The simplest next step is electromagnetism rather than gravity.
There's a beautiful quantitative description of how the field of a
moving charge "separates" from the charge in Purcell, _Electricity
and Magnetism_, section 5.7.  This is very close to my description
of what happens with the shadow of a moving object, but it has all
of the details.

For gravity, as I said, it's more complicated, especially since the
field equations are nonlinear.  You can find a derivation of the
linear approximation in any GR textbook, and if you compare to
Purcell, you'll see that the description is very similar.  Once
you really understand this, it might be fun to do a more direct
analogue of Purcell's argument.  This should be possible by using
the Kinnersley metric (you can get a start by looking at my paper
at https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087).

Steve Carlip

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

#606237

Steven Carlip wrote:

> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
> [...]
>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not convinced.
>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is that
>> it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
> 
> Good.  You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
> it as a starting point for learning more. […]

Pearls before the swine.  I hate to break this to you, but you have wasted 
your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they have just 
changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann Tonn").

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#606257

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Steven Carlip wrote:
> 
>> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
>> [...]
>>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not
>>> convinced.
>>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is
>>> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
>> 
>> Good.  You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
>> it as a starting point for learning more. […]
> 
> Pearls before the swine.  I hate to break this to you, but you have
> wasted your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they
> have just changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann
> Tonn").

You are so lacking the required pre-requisites, not seeing that Dr. Steven 
decided to credit Dr. Maryann in his lectures in Universities. Which is 
advanced material in Physics, not digestible to half-engineers like you.

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

#606436

The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Bob Goodman" (formerly: "Maryann 
Tonn"):

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Steven Carlip wrote:
>>> On 11/23/16 5:37 AM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> In spite of what you said is pretty much consistent, I'm not
>>>> convinced.
>>>> As you say, light shadows are not a one-to-one analogy. The point is
>>>> that it is about the geometry/projection, not the shadow.
>>> Good.  You shouldn't be convinced by an analogy -- you should just take
>>> it as a starting point for learning more. […]
>> Pearls before the swine.  I hate to break this to you, but you have
>> wasted your precious time feeding the ’nym-shifting (Tensor) troll; they
>> have just changed their pseudonym again (previously it was "Maryann
>> Tonn").
> 
> You are so lacking the required pre-requisites, not seeing that Dr. Steven
> decided to credit Dr. Maryann
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFL!

> in his lectures in Universities.

Steven has confirmed to me via e-mail that he knew he was feeding you, but 
that he found it worthwhile to post this anyway – *for other* subscribers*.

> Which is advanced material in Physics, not digestible to half-engineers
> like you.

Quoting Paul Andersen, slightly corrected:

“It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance [makes]
a person constantly change [their] name and write nonsense only.”

*PLONK*

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#606094

Carlip
"

As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the 
next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your 
real name, I'll be happy to credit you. 

Steve "

It's a perfect analogy.
Except that Gravity, which is
caused by emissions 
from electrons with vibrations
in the 50 attoseconds range
(electron period 100 attoseconds)
is travelling at least 10 times faster than
light.

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

#606161

On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote:
> Carlip
> "
>
> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the
> next time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your
> real name, I'll be happy to credit you.
>
> Steve "
>
> It's a perfect analogy.
> Except that Gravity, which is
> caused by emissions
> from electrons with vibrations
> in the 50 attoseconds range
> (electron period 100 attoseconds)
> is travelling at least 10 times faster than
> light.

Can you refer laboratories that were successful
in reproducing the confirming experiment ?

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#606162

Poutnik wrote:

> On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote:
>> Carlip "
>>
>> As a matter of fact, this is not a bad analogy.  I may use it the next
>> time I teach GR, probably next fall.  If you give me your real name,
>> I'll be happy to credit you. Steve "
>>
>> It's a perfect analogy.
>> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with
>> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100
>> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light.
> 
> Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the
> confirming experiment ?

What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you 
are not even really interested.

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

#606166

On 11/23/2016 07:28 PM, Dusty Kollman wrote:
> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2016 02:39 PM, john wrote:

>>> It's a perfect analogy.
>>> Except that Gravity, which is caused by emissions from electrons with
>>> vibrations in the 50 attoseconds range (electron period 100
>>> attoseconds) is travelling at least 10 times faster than light.
>>
>> Can you refer laboratories that were successful in reproducing the
>> confirming experiment ?
>
> What for, you are not gonna pretend you'll also understand. Infact, you
> are not even really interested.

He cannot refer them.
You are not even able to recognize a sarcastic question.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web