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

Groups > sci.physics > #607770 > unrolled thread

How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 10:43 -0800
    Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-04 10:53 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-04 11:54 -0800
        Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-04 13:34 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-05 07:46 -0800
    Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-04 14:47 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-04 14:49 -0800
        Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-04 15:13 -0800
          Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-04 16:05 -0800
            Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-04 16:47 -0800
              Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-05 07:32 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-05 07:57 -0800
    Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 10:09 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 11:50 -0800
    Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 11:29 -0800
      Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-05 11:56 -0800
        Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 13:51 -0800
          Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-06 13:54 -0800
            Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:41 -0800
              Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-11 12:43 -0800
              Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-11 14:12 -0800
                Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-11 16:21 -0800
          Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-06 17:55 -0500
          Re: How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-06 15:20 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#607770 — How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity

Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html 
 Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1): "Another consequence of the [Maxwell's] equations is that if the source of the disturbance is moving, the light emitted goes through space at the same speed c. This is analogous to the case of sound, the speed of sound waves being likewise independent of the motion of the source. This independence of the motion of the source, in the case of light, brings up an interesting problem: Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..."

The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf 
 John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory 
 "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
 Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#607772

Einstein was confusing special relativity in an equally idiotic way:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html 
 Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." 

Does w = c - v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is obvious, except in Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/863506einsteinformuletableau.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

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

#607784

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:53:22 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein was confusing special relativity in an equally idiotic way:
> 
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html 
>  Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." 
> 
> Does w = c - v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is obvious, except in Einstein schizophrenic world:
> 
> http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/863506einsteinformuletableau.jpg 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Finding Feynman "confused" is hard.He was a gifted student,thinker,and talker. He had a great sense of humor.Could paint,and loved music.Treb sees him and me as equally gifted,but he had MIT. He had Wheeler,and Furmi.I had only me and Treb. TreBert

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

#607798

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote that the
he was the gifted <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine>

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

#607875

Richard Feynman brainwashes the gullible world:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html 
 "The twin paradox. To continue our discussion of the Lorentz transformation and relativistic effects, we consider a famous so-called "paradox" of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time. When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul's clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter's point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the mu-mesons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving. This is called a "paradox" only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, "Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can't we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet." But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship - the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on - while Peter felt nothing. So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger."

Note this:

"Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks..."

No need for Paul to stop. According to special relativity, he observes Peter's stationary clock running slow all along, that is, Paul observes Peter aging MORE SLOWLY:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 
 David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..."

Clearly the twin paradox is an absurdity: Peter observes Paul aging more slowly, and Paul observes Peter aging more slowly. Einsteinians can only save Divine Albert's Divine Theory by ascribing miraculous powers to the turning-around acceleration, and Feynman did use that hoax. The author of the hoax was, needless to say, Einstein:

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm 
 Albert Einstein (1918): "A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4."

Nowadays there is no need to "save" Divine Albert's Divine Theory (it is absolutely invincible) so Einsteinians almost universally reject (implicitly of course) Einstein's 1918 arguments and teach that the turning-around acceleration is IMMATERIAL: 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/ 
 Ronald Lasky: "Since relativity says that there is no absolute motion, wouldn't the brother traveling to the star also see his brother's clock on the earth move more slowly? If this were the case, wouldn't they both be the same age? This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental." 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
 Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."  x 

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 
 Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf 
 Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev

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

#607820

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> 
> http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> 
> 
> The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> 
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
>  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> 
> Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
>  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
> 
> Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> 
> 
> Pentcho Valev



Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
Einstein's war with Germany.


Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...

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

#607821

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> >
> > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> >
> >
> > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> >
> > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> >
> > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we th
> >
> > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> >
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> 
> Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> Einstein's war with Germany.
> 
> Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...



...and after the bomb was built, Albert Einsteins friends didn't want to
talk with him anymore...

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

#607822

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> > >
> > > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> > >
> > >
> > > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> > >
> > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> > >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> > >
> > > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we
> > >
> > > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> > >
> > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> > >
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev
> >
> > Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> > Einstein's war with Germany.
> >
> > Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...
> 
> ...and after the bomb was built, Albert Einsteins friends didn't want to
> talk with him anymore...


I mean, come on really...did any friends of Albert Einstein EVER said anything nice aout Albert Einstein? Certaintly not Richard Feynman who he
hated Albert Einstein with a vengence...probably didn't agree with ANY of Einstein's theorires either!

Even Albert Einstein teacher said..."He's a fuckin lazy dog!"

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

#607829

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> > > >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> > > >
> > > > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > > >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and w
> > > >
> > > > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pentcho Valev
> > >
> > > Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> > > Einstein's war with Germany.
> > >
> > > Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...
> >
> > ...and after the bomb was built, Albert Einsteins friends didn't want to
> > talk with him anymore...
> 
> I mean, come on really...did any friends of Albert Einstein EVER said anything nice aout Albert Einstein? Certaintly not Richard Feynman who he
> hated Albert Einstein with a vengence...probably didn't agree with ANY of Einstein's theorires either!
> 

...and of course, Richard Feynman blamed Albert Einstein for exposing him to the atomic bomb raidation which gave
everyone  abdominal cancer...even Albert Einstein died from it as others like Ferni..

but yous don't know this stuff because you haven't read:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

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

#607834

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> > > > >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> > > > >
> > > > > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > > > >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and
> > > > >
> > > > > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > >
> > > > Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> > > > Einstein's war with Germany.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...
> > >
> > > ...and after the bomb was built, Albert Einsteins friends didn't want to
> > > talk with him anymore...
> >
> > I mean, come on really...did any friends of Albert Einstein EVER said anything nice aout Albert Einstein? Certaintly not Richard Feynman who he
> > hated Albert Einstein with a vengence...probably didn't agree with ANY of Einstein's theorires either!
> >
> 
> ...and of course, Richard Feynman blamed Albert Einstein for exposing him to the atomic bomb raidation which gave
> everyone  abdominal cancer...even Albert Einstein died from it as others like Ferni..
> 
> but yous don't know this stuff because you haven't read:
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html



Now, believe it or not...

there are people here that will insist that
yes, all those atomic scientist died of abdominal cancer except...
Albert Einstein..they will say Albert Einstein died of abdominal 'something else'.

Because, you're not allowed to say Albert Einstein died of abdominal cancer because
they stupidity insist he had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. They just want to
disassociate him with *any*thing to do with the atomic bomb.

It's not my problem that they are...stupid- or suckers.

Are you stupid too? Or are you just a sucker??

If you try and look up what Einstein died of...you'll find
"he had a problem with his stomach we're not sure what it was'

Now, did Albert Einstein bother to tell anybody that nucleaur raidation is...poisionous????

That it can kill you if you get near it?

Or, did he keep it a secret? 

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

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

#607871

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> > > > > >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> > > > > >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> > > > > Einstein's war with Germany.
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...
> > > >
> > > > ...and after the bomb was built, Albert Einsteins friends didn't want to
> > > > talk with him anymore...
> > >
> > > I mean, come on really...did any friends of Albert Einstein EVER said anything nice aout Albert Einstein? Certaintly not Richard Feynman who he
> > > hated Albert Einstein with a vengence...probably didn't agree with ANY of Einstein's theorires either!
> > >
> >
> > ...and of course, Richard Feynman blamed Albert Einstein for exposing him to the atomic bomb raidation which gave
> > everyone  abdominal cancer...even Albert Einstein died from it as others like Ferni..
> >
> > but yous don't know this stuff because you haven't read:
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html
> 
> Now, believe it or not...
> 
> there are people here that will insist that
> yes, all those atomic scientist died of abdominal cancer except...
> Albert Einstein..they will say Albert Einstein died of abdominal 'something else'.
> 
> Because, you're not allowed to say Albert Einstein died of abdominal cancer because
> they stupidity insist he had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. They just want to
> disassociate him with *any*thing to do with the atomic bomb.
> 
> It's not my problem that they are...stupid- or suckers.
> 
> Are you stupid too? Or are you just a sucker??
> 
> If you try and look up what Einstein died of...you'll find
> "he had a problem with his stomach we're not sure what it was'
> 
> Now, did Albert Einstein bother to tell anybody that nucleaur raidation is...poisionous????
> 
> That it can kill you if you get near it?
> 
> Or, did he keep it a secret?
> 
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html



But you got to give albert einStein some credit, not only does he know how to 'start all the wars' he even supplies all the bombs!
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein/#first



(i bet you guys didn't know that when albert einstein was living in germany he used to
design war planes for the Germans.)

but you probably didn't read the book:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_The-Man-Who-Built-The-Atomic-Bomb.html

The man was the Bomb!

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

#607877

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >
> > Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> >
> > http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
> >
> >
> > The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> >
> > http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
> >  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> >
> > Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> >  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we th
> >
> > Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/
> >
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> 
> Richard Feynman was mad at Albert Einstein for drafting him in
> Einstein's war with Germany.
> 
> Richard Feynman hates Albert Einstein with a vengence...



I mean ...really, did Richard Feynman EVER even mention ANY of Albert Einstein's THEORIES to ...anyone?

Did Richard Feynman agree with ANYTHING albert einstein thought about Gravity???? 


i don't think so...


If you look at Feynman lectures, it reads:

 "Einstein advanced arguments which *suggest* that we cannot send signals faster than the speed of light"
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_07.html


"suggest"??  just consider it, but thats all.



and then it goes on:


"...it would be important to see whether Newton’s law modified to Einstein’s law can be further modified to be consistent with the uncertainty principle. 
This last modification has not yet been completed."

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_07.html



"This last modification has not yet been completed."



It's 2016 now, has This last modification been completed yet????



Where's the evidence?

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

#607897

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:43:31 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> 
> http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html 
>  Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1): "Another consequence of the [Maxwell's] equations is that if the source of the disturbance is moving, the light emitted goes through space at the same speed c. This is analogous to the case of sound, the speed of sound waves being likewise independent of the motion of the source. This independence of the motion of the source, in the case of light, brings up an interesting problem: Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..."
> 
> The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> 
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf 
>  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> 
> Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory 
>  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."
> 
> Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
>  Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."
> 
> Pentcho Valev

E=MC^2 only proved matter had great energy  TreBert Ps Einstein never did Bomb work Trebert

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

#607916

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> aka
the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> 
"Expressed More Crazy Crap" (E=MC^2) only proved 
chatter in Bert's 17 theories predict & prompted...

On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Swine Glazier to post & write:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>:
"I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide".
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> - Bert
>
On 25Mar2008 the criminal Gaveyard Vandal Glazier to write in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh w
hen it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
So Glazier, as can be seen there must be at least two of your
17 theories involved which had the gravitas to sacrifice your
rationality and civility.
>
Now Glazier, be a Mensch not just a Swine and share those
wonders in your Theories as long as you still have only one
foot in your coffin... Don't take it to your grave.
>
Get the deserved fame now, while you are still twitching
 

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

#607912

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:43:31 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Richard Feynman either did not understand special relativity or was deliberately confusing the audience:
> 
> http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html 
>  Richard Feynman (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1): "Another consequence of the [Maxwell's] equations is that if the source of the disturbance is moving, the light emitted goes through space at the same speed c. This is analogous to the case of sound, the speed of sound waves being likewise independent of the motion of the source. This independence of the motion of the source, in the case of light, brings up an interesting problem: Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..."
> 
> The independence of the motion of the source by no means brings up the "interesting problem" where the dependence/independence of the motion of the observer is discussed. Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory did indeed predict independence of the motion of the source for the speed of light but at the same time predicted dependence on the motion of the observer:
> 
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf 
>  John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
> 
> Feynman doesn't even mention the crucial fact that, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the Galilean transformation:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory 
>  "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."
> 
> Feynman's explanation of the twin paradox, too, is very suspicious:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ 
>  Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong."
> 
> Pentcho Valev

To say this famous scientist did not understand or did not lecture it well is one big mistake. Surely you are joking Trebert

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

#607917

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
"To say famous Trebarf Glazier did not understand or did 
not lecture it well is one big mistake. Surely you are 
joking", because Web searches show for:
>
Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----         2,839,632 hits & rising
reber Face-Shitter-Graveyard Vandal ----  2,922,953 hits & rising
>

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

#608089

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:57:20 AM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
> "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> "To say famous Trebarf Glazier did not understand or did 
> not lecture it well is one big mistake. Surely you are 
> joking", because Web searches show for:
> >
> Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----         2,839,632 hits & rising
> reber Face-Shitter-Graveyard Vandal ----  2,922,953 hits & rising
> >

2,922,955 hits makes me the most popular poster in the internet.This does not count my endless email from every country in the world. I'm very popular in Russia,Australia,UK and France.Wish I was popular in Sweden(Nobels) Skole   O Ya TreBert

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

#608092

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:51:18 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:57:20 AM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
> > "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "To say famous Trebarf Glazier did not understand or did 
> > not lecture it well is one big mistake. Surely you are 
> > joking", because Web searches show for:
> > >
> > Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----         2,839,632 hits & rising
> > reber Face-Shitter-Graveyard Vandal ----  2,922,953 hits & rising
> > >
> 
> 2,922,955 hits makes me the most popular poster in the internet.This does not count my endless email from every country in the world. I'm very popular in Russia,Australia,UK and France.Wish I was popular in Sweden(Nobels) Skole   O Ya TreBert


Skoal!  I thought I had a Swedish great grandmother, but then I found out she was only a step great grandmother.

Double-A

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

#608647

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:54:16 PM UTC-8, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:51:18 PM UTC-8, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 11:57:20 AM UTC-8, hanson wrote:
> > > "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "To say famous Trebarf Glazier did not understand or did 
> > > not lecture it well is one big mistake. Surely you are 
> > > joking", because Web searches show for:
> > > >
> > > Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----         2,839,632 hits & rising
> > > reber Face-Shitter-Graveyard Vandal ----  2,922,953 hits & rising
> > > >
> > 
> > 2,922,955 hits makes me the most popular poster in the internet.This does not count my endless email from every country in the world. I'm very popular in Russia,Australia,UK and France.Wish I was popular in Sweden(Nobels) Skole   O Ya TreBert
> 
> 
> Skoal!  I thought I had a Swedish great grandmother, but then I found out she was only a step great grandmother.
> 
> Double-A

I think if you go back far enough people like the Vikings came from Sweden and had blue eyes. I have pretty blue eyes.Hmmm  TreBert

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

#608659

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think if you go back far enough people like the Vikings 
> came from Sweden and had blue eyes. I have pretty blue 
> eyes.Hmmm which TreBert the Face shitter & Criminal 
Graveyard Vandal who post as
>
<http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> is doing this 
<http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>
to his crowd of "Anon Y Mouse" & 8 other Bert-shit-eaters
of the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> who
freely & happily laid themselves under Glazier's Sphincter
>
.. but never "got the picture" of what when Cohen meant:
_____   "you filthy Pigs, 'You must repent' " _____
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkRqQQWu_mA>
ever since Tre:B::ert Glazier introduced himself with & as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible (torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: "God and religion is hocus pocus". Trebert.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I left my dentures in Boston when I fled to CA
:B:: to evade my creditors & my daugher Sheri who
:B:: wanted to warehouse me in a nursing homne".
:B:: "I have a Social worker to make sure that I eat
:B:: my Lithium & 21 other pills. I paint Grey Cloud."
:B:: after sex with a Cuban cigar I drink bud .Trebert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am living in my Van that I parked illegally
:B:: on Wal-Mart's property for over a year." Bert
:B:: "I shit into a bucket in my van and then throw
:B:: the bag full of crap into Walmart's Dumpsters"
:B:: "Mayor Tait told me to get lost when I demanded
:B::  a contract to clean the city's HVAC ducts.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am a loser & so ugly I will not vote for myself"
:B:: "I re-franchize my M&M (Maggots & Manure).".
:B:: "I sell imaginary boats and defective patio decks"
:B:: "I stole & gave G=EMC^2 to the world", which
:B:: says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
:B:: "With G=EMC^2 I made all good posters leave s.p."
B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them"....
:B:: "I mixed sulfer, carb & iron to make gun powder"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Bert.
:B:: "I am self-taught. I'm very *cleaver* out of the box."
:B:: "My cockroach taught me a lot. My grammar stinks"
:B:: "I have lived for too long.. back to the oven" Trebert.
:B::  "I called the Mental Health Hotline (800) 723-8641
:B::  spooked a lady with fearing to get shot in my head"
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "While I was in custody of Osceola Sheriff Bob
:B:: Hansel, for thieving, his deputies beat me up.
:B:: I bought a 357 magnum for death threats by Hansel.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web