Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #637658 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-25 10:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-07 19:20 -0700 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 116 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
"Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-25 10:25 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-25 15:46 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-26 22:49 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 19:20 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:24 +0200
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 05:46 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:13 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 16:19 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:00 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-26 23:17 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 00:33 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-27 23:12 +0200
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 20:49 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 00:34 +0200
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-28 22:06 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-28 22:53 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 14:10 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-03 13:26 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 17:09 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 17:53 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 16:15 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 20:37 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 17:41 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 18:06 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 21:41 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 19:26 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 19:32 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 19:49 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-28 17:37 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 17:50 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-28 17:35 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 16:13 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 20:40 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 19:09 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 10:02 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-29 10:24 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 17:01 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 05:07 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 05:11 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 06:01 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 14:21 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 16:42 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:30 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 18:04 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-30 18:33 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:43 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-01 09:39 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-01 11:55 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 17:04 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 21:16 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 06:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-03 15:23 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 17:50 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-04 17:16 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 19:52 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-05 19:39 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:24 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-06 17:12 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:10 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-06 21:53 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 21:58 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-02 12:55 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:15 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 11:21 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 18:33 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:35 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 04:46 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 04:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Gibutsi Fumihazu <uft@wwhm.cu> - 2017-07-01 12:06 +0000
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:30 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-01 09:45 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:34 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 05:09 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-01 09:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" "Herp Derpington" <herp@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-01 07:06 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:21 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-01 09:43 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 11:27 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:38 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:28 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:33 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 13:54 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 21:06 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 18:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 18:13 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 21:40 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 09:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-28 22:25 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 20:39 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-28 23:37 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-28 23:56 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 21:46 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 21:22 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-29 14:16 +0200
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 05:41 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 21:43 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 15:14 +0200
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-26 18:15 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-26 23:19 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-26 18:14 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 16:58 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 19:06 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:01 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:23 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:48 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-27 07:46 -0500
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 17:14 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-06-27 15:57 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-27 20:36 -0400
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-26 23:34 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-06-27 10:04 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:23 -0700
Re: "Einstein's Philosophy" "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-07 19:20 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 23:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5951F8E2.5FED@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #637820 |
benj wrote: > > On 6/26/2017 9:14 AM, Poutnik wrote: > > Dne 26.6.2017 v 14:46 Arindam Banerjee napsal(a): > >> On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC+10, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >>> Dne 26/06/2017 v 04:20 Arindam Banerjee napsal(a): > >>>> > >>>> It is not Einstein that is the main problem, though; it is the > >>>> Einsteinians, > >>>> his followers that milk the population for research funding. > >>>>> > >>> The problems are those > >>> spitting on things they do not understand > >>> to make the things to look wrong, crazy and irrelevant, > >>> while making themselves to look clever. > >> > >> How correct, you seem to have understood the ways of the Einsteinians > >> - all > >> their lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti > >> science. > >> > >> The genuine scientist does not depend upon milking the public for > >> money to > >> be wasted upon nonsensical conjectures like e=mcc > >> > >> He uses his wits, his time and his money, and braves all the horrors the > >> liars and frauds can throw at him, in his pursuit of scientific truth. > >> > >> And then he publishes his results for the world to see, in the most > >> convincing manner possible, as my video films to be found from the > >> following > >> links: > >> > > > > Continuous spitting, lying and presending pseudoscience. > > And I'm pretty sure he's a parrot and pig thief too... i never heard of a pig thief before... wat do they do with the pigs after they steal them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59518739$0$22659$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #637762 |
On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC+10, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: >> Dne 26/06/2017 v 04:20 Arindam Banerjee napsal(a): >>> >>> It is not Einstein that is the main problem, though; it is the Einsteinians, >>> his followers that milk the population for research funding. >>>> >> The problems are those >> spitting on things they do not understand >> to make the things to look wrong, crazy and irrelevant, >> while making themselves to look clever. > > How correct, you seem to have understood the ways of the Einsteinians - all > their lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti science. Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter than Einsetien" award. > The genuine scientist does not depend upon milking the public for money to > be wasted upon nonsensical conjectures like e=mcc Obviously Einstein knew no science because he lived on public money. > He uses his wits, his time and his money, and braves all the horrors the > liars and frauds can throw at him, in his pursuit of scientific truth. He's talking about all the "horrors" people like ne "throw" at him. Like saying his garage experiment is total nonsense. Oh My! The HORROR! > And then he publishes his results for the world to see, in the most > convincing manner possible, as my video films to be found from the following > links: Want to waste your life. Go view these videos. It's time you'll never get back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54b85a73-2738-4c43-92df-8250ca057b2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637818 |
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:14:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 3:24:06 PM UTC+10, Poutnik Fornntp wrote: > >> Dne 26/06/2017 v 04:20 Arindam Banerjee napsal(a): > >>> > >>> It is not Einstein that is the main problem, though; it is the Einsteinians, > >>> his followers that milk the population for research funding. > >>>> > >> The problems are those > >> spitting on things they do not understand > >> to make the things to look wrong, crazy and irrelevant, > >> while making themselves to look clever. > > > > How correct, you seem to have understood the ways of the Einsteinians - all > > their lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti science. > > Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter > than Einsetien" award. Since you are not a bungler of the same awesome scale as Albert Einstein, who totally bungled and distorted our view of the universe, even you have to be much smarter than Einstein, benj. For that matter, any harmless village idiot is much smarter than Einstein. For Einstein's smartness was very highly negative. Hmm, if you take the absolute values of smartness (like removing the negative sign from Einstein's smartness) then too I am far smarter but then I am, at the service of the Gods and Goddesses and all animal and vegetable and mineral: Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole god among lotsa devils exactly as I have stated often before. > > > The genuine scientist does not depend upon milking the public for money to > > be wasted upon nonsensical conjectures like e=mcc > > Obviously Einstein knew no science because he lived on public money. > > > He uses his wits, his time and his money, and braves all the horrors the > > liars and frauds can throw at him, in his pursuit of scientific truth. > > He's talking about all the "horrors" people like ne "throw" at him. Like > saying his garage experiment is total nonsense. Oh My! The HORROR! > > > And then he publishes his results for the world to see, in the most > > convincing manner possible, as my video films to be found from the following > > links: > > Want to waste your life. Go view these videos. It's time you'll never > get back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 19:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ois7io$10ji$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #637852 |
On 6/26/17 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > god among lotsa devils > > exactly as I have stated often before. > This doesn't worry you, Arindam? It should. It's a really bad sign. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 18:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf8af012-f198-4f31-98ca-3259785043be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637856 |
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:06:54 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/26/17 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > > god among lotsa devils > > > > exactly as I have stated often before. > > > > This doesn't worry you, Arindam? It should. It's a really bad sign. Nah, not to me. It is a sign that I am still alive and happy to take on the lying scoundrels with my usual zest. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 18:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1fafbffa-abae-458f-a1dc-d04f6cc26bc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637866 |
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:06:54 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 6/26/17 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > > > god among lotsa devils > > > > > > exactly as I have stated often before. > > > > This doesn't worry you, Arindam? It should. It's a really bad sign. > > Nah, not to me. It is a sign that I am still alive and happy to take on the > lying scoundrels with my usual zest. That's just perfect beautiful, Arindam! I just love it! Based on all your posts. I too will re-use your idea BanerjeeJi, come the future! Me m(y) own ideas are old. > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Hey Odd, sell your toys via Amazon. Need directions? What?! Is there anyone else? -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 18:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07062975-c21d-409e-bef0-cc20b07db9c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637872 |
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 11:23:18 AM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote: > On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 9:01:36 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:06:54 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 6/26/17 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > > > > god among lotsa devils > > > > > > > > exactly as I have stated often before. > > > > > > This doesn't worry you, Arindam? It should. It's a really bad sign. > > > > Nah, not to me. It is a sign that I am still alive and happy to take on the > > lying scoundrels with my usual zest. > > That's just perfect beautiful, Arindam! I just love it! Based on all your posts. > I too will re-use your idea BanerjeeJi, come the future! Me m(y) own ideas are old. > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Hey Odd, sell your toys via Amazon. Need directions? What?! Is there anyone else? > > -- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८! > Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace. Old is gold, when true! All I am trying to do is to put real physics back on its tracks. Einstein & Co. have derailed physics. The sooner real physicists join to put these terrific train back on the tracks, the better. Plenty of work to do, let all good men and women come to the party! Lots to do, lots to explore... when we throw out the e=mcc rubbish. Thanks for your encouragement! Keep well. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 07:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oitk3g$120b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #637852 |
On 6/26/2017 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:14:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: heir lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti science. >> >> Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter >> than Einsetien" award. > > Since you are not a bungler of the same awesome scale as Albert Einstein, who > totally bungled and distorted our view of the universe, even you have to be > much smarter than Einstein, benj. For that matter, any harmless village > idiot is much smarter than Einstein. For Einstein's smartness was very highly > negative. > > Hmm, if you take the absolute values of smartness (like removing the negative > sign from Einstein's smartness) then too I am far smarter but then I am, at > the service of the Gods and Goddesses and all animal and vegetable and > mineral: > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > god among lotsa devils > > exactly as I have stated often before. > Dr. Arindam Banerjee, MD ? in Conroe Texas ? https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-arindam-banerjee-3by93 ...who woulda thought...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 17:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5952cac1$0$43894$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #637914 |
On 6/27/2017 8:46 AM, Sегgi о wrote: > On 6/26/2017 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:14:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>> On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > heir lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti > science. >>> >>> Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter >>> than Einsetien" award. >> >> Since you are not a bungler of the same awesome scale as Albert >> Einstein, who >> totally bungled and distorted our view of the universe, even you have >> to be >> much smarter than Einstein, benj. For that matter, any harmless village >> idiot is much smarter than Einstein. For Einstein's smartness was very >> highly >> negative. >> >> Hmm, if you take the absolute values of smartness (like removing the >> negative >> sign from Einstein's smartness) then too I am far smarter but then I >> am, at >> the service of the Gods and Goddesses and all animal and vegetable and >> mineral: >> >> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all >> time, sole >> god among lotsa devils >> >> exactly as I have stated often before. > > > > Dr. Arindam Banerjee, MD ? in Conroe Texas ? > > https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-arindam-banerjee-3by93 > > ...who woulda thought... > > Got the proper attitude for a cardiologist...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a066470-764e-4cdf-82a3-1ea6a64c8229@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637914 |
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:46:45 PM UTC+10, Sегgi о wrote: > On 6/26/2017 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:14:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > heir lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti > science. > >> > >> Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter > >> than Einsetien" award. > > > > Since you are not a bungler of the same awesome scale as Albert Einstein, who > > totally bungled and distorted our view of the universe, even you have to be > > much smarter than Einstein, benj. For that matter, any harmless village > > idiot is much smarter than Einstein. For Einstein's smartness was very highly > > negative. > > > > Hmm, if you take the absolute values of smartness (like removing the negative > > sign from Einstein's smartness) then too I am far smarter but then I am, at > > the service of the Gods and Goddesses and all animal and vegetable and > > mineral: > > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > > god among lotsa devils > > > > exactly as I have stated often before. > > > > > > Dr. Arindam Banerjee, MD ? in Conroe Texas ? > > https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-arindam-banerjee-3by93 > > ...who woulda thought... No no no, a few things about me are at my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359 In brief, I have been an antenna and radar engineer, a telecom researcher, an IT specialist and now am pursuing my hobby which is fundamental physics relating to energy and motion. Hopefully this hobby will turn into a new discipline in my lifetime. I have written extensively in Usenet since say 1995 in various newsgroups. Many should be archived by google. At present I own and am the single entity in my company HTN Research Pty Ltd. and I hope to start the Hydrogen Economy comprehensively with my proposed Hydrogen Transmission Network, detail at www.htnresearch.com I have a patent for this, with Ilya Shambat as the co-inventor. Recently I have made a profound discovery, that the Lorenz force does not have an opposite reaction just as predicted by the Lorenz relation - the credit for which should be given to Sir JJ Thomson and Oliver Heaviside. Using that effect, I find that very powerful new electric motors can be made, with the subsequent revised laws of physics based upon the true mass-energy relationship that I discovered back in 1999, that is, e=0.5mVVN(N-k) The results of my recent work I have presented as video films, and their links have been presented quite often recently so I won't do that now! I am of course hoping fro a very positive reaction to my work from the honest and intelligent scientific community. The sooner, the better. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 20:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5952f9f3$0$11838$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #637982 |
On 6/27/2017 6:57 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 10:46:45 PM UTC+10, Sегgi о wrote: >> On 6/26/2017 6:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:14:19 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2017 8:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> >> heir lies are for milking the public for money for their pseudo/anti >> science. >>>> >>>> Yep. Einstein was a moron. Obviously YOU are up for this year's "Smarter >>>> than Einsetien" award. >>> >>> Since you are not a bungler of the same awesome scale as Albert Einstein, who >>> totally bungled and distorted our view of the universe, even you have to be >>> much smarter than Einstein, benj. For that matter, any harmless village >>> idiot is much smarter than Einstein. For Einstein's smartness was very highly >>> negative. >>> >>> Hmm, if you take the absolute values of smartness (like removing the negative >>> sign from Einstein's smartness) then too I am far smarter but then I am, at >>> the service of the Gods and Goddesses and all animal and vegetable and >>> mineral: >>> >>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole >>> god among lotsa devils >>> >>> exactly as I have stated often before. >>> >> >> >> >> Dr. Arindam Banerjee, MD ? in Conroe Texas ? >> >> https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-arindam-banerjee-3by93 >> >> ...who woulda thought... > > No no no, a few things about me are at my facebook page: > > https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359 > > In brief, I have been an antenna and radar engineer, a telecom researcher, > an IT specialist and now am pursuing my hobby which is fundamental physics > relating to energy and motion. Hopefully this hobby will turn into a new > discipline in my lifetime. > > I have written extensively in Usenet since say 1995 in various newsgroups. Many > should be archived by google. > > At present I own and am the single entity in my company HTN Research Pty Ltd. > and I hope to start the Hydrogen Economy comprehensively with my proposed > Hydrogen Transmission Network, detail at www.htnresearch.com I have a patent > for this, with Ilya Shambat as the co-inventor. > > Recently I have made a profound discovery, that the Lorenz force does not have > an opposite reaction just as predicted by the Lorenz relation - the credit > for which should be given to Sir JJ Thomson and Oliver Heaviside. > > Using that effect, I find that very powerful new electric motors can be made, > with the subsequent revised laws of physics based upon the true mass-energy > relationship that I discovered back in 1999, that is, e=0.5mVVN(N-k) The > results of my recent work I have presented as video films, and their links > have been presented quite often recently so I won't do that now! > > I am of course hoping fro a very positive reaction to my work from the > honest and intelligent scientific community. The sooner, the better. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > Yeah, people in Hell are waiting for ice water too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5cd4b17-87ef-4de6-bc0c-618f8c09b9dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637658 |
Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star. Parallax is based on the stars of the stellar universe that are stationary. The change in the angular position of a star is measured after an observer on the surface of the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter (six months) which is used as the parallax reference distance but the distance to a 4.22 light year (4 x 10^16 meters) star is more than 10^7 times larger than the earth's orbital diameter (1.4 x 10^10 m); consequently, the reference distance of the earth's orbital distance is to short of a length to obtain a change in the angular position (resolution) that can be detected by a telescope. Example, using a/c = cos θ where a is the parallax reference distance and c is the distance to the star and θ is the resolution forms (1.4 x 10^10 m) / (4 x 10^16 meters) = a/c. When a/c --> 0, a/c = θ; consequently, θ = 3.5 x 10^-7 degree or .00126 arcsec which is less than the resolution of the Hubble and proves parallax cannot be used to determine the distance to a 4.22 ly star. Moreover, a dimming method of the star's intensity is used to determine the distance to a star that are more than 350 light years from the earth but the detection of a star that is more than 350 light years from the earth would require a resolution of more than .001 arcsec yet the Hubble space telescope has a resolution of .1 arcsec which proves modern astronomy is physically invalid.
The images of the Eagle Nebula obtained using the Spitzer space telescope were created using computer induced images since the image of the Eagle Nebula represents a celestial gas cloud (fig 14) but the vacuum of celestial universe cannot support the structure of a gas cloud since the existence of a cloud requires an atmosphere. In addition, a planet has been detected that is orbiting a 4.22 ly star but the Hubble telescope has a resolution of .1 arcsec. To detect an object on the surface of the moon would require an illuminated object with a diameter of 200 meters. The Hubble proportionality p is formed using the moon's distance and the 200 m resolution diameter p = (3.84 x 10^8 m) / (200 m) = 10^6. The detection of a 4.22 ly planet using the Hubble requires a minimum planetary diameter of {(4.22 ly) / p} = {(4 x 10^16) / p} = 1010 m that is more than 1,000 times the diameter of the earth (1.3 x 10^7 m) which proves the Hubble telescope that is the most power telescope known to man cannot be used to view a 4.22 ly planet; consequently, Chilean astronomers use the dimming of a 4.22 ly star Proxima Centauri caused by a planet orbiting a 4.22 star viewed using the La Silla telescope (Escude, p. 408) but the variation of the intensity (dimming) of a 4.22 light year star caused by the planet's area reducing the 4.22 ly star's intensity is within the intensity measurement fluctuation caused by the thermodynamic variations of the earth's atmosphere which proves the detection of a planet orbiting a 4.22 ly stars is physically invalid. Furthermore, the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge detected a blackhole of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 million light years from the earth using the Chandra X-ray space telescope but X-rays cannot be focused using an optical lens which would make it extremely difficult to detect stellar X-rays produced by a 250 million light year blackhole. Also, the detection of a blackhole requires the viewing of stars that surround the blackhole but to detect a 250 million ly star would require a telescopic resolution power of more than .0001 arcsec yet the Hubble has a resolution power of .1 arsec which proves blackholes are an astronomic hoax.
The Big Bang expansion theory is justified using the symmetry of a spiral galaxy. The outwardly radiating tentacles of a spiral galaxy represent a galaxy that stars originate from a central point which is used to justify that the stellar universe is expanding but the image of a spiral galaxy was arbitrarily created by manually manipulating a photographic image since the photographic images of the Milky Way spiral galaxy contains the Sun and the Earth that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth which is not physically possible. Also, the density of the stars that constitute the celestial universe viewed from all directions from the earth is constant yet the image of the Milky Way galaxy represents a higher density of stars at the center of the Milky Way and along the tentacles of the Milky Way which conflicts with the constant density of stars of the celestial universe viewed from the earth. Furthermore, to view the stars of the NGC 4414 spiral galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices that is approximately 60 million light-years away from Earth would require a resolution of more than .001 arcsec yet the Hubble space telescope resolution is .1 arcsec which proves the images of spiral galaxies are fake. The stars of the stellar universe are stationary since the stars of the constellations that constitute the celestial universe have not change positions since the advent of photograph (120 years). Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe at different times and positions forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. When the observer on the surface of the earth propagates towards a star that motion is caused by the earth's daily and yearly motions the blue shift is produced and when the observer propagates away from the star, the red shift is observed; consequently, the stellar red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions affect on the observer viewing the stars of a stationary celestial universe which contradicts the Big Bang theory that is based on a celestial universe that stars are in motion (expanding).
The Caltech-MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is described in Smullin paper "Optical Echoes from the Moon" (1962). The Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is an attempt at measuring the distance from the earth to the moon using a mirrored reflector that was install on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. A 2.3 W laser beam at the earth is pointed at the lunar reflector that is 238,900 miles from the earth. The laser beam's intensity is reflected by the lunar reflector then detected by the Lick observatory. The Hubble space telescope (.1 arcsec) is six times more powerful than the Lick telescope (.6 arcsec). The Hubble requires an illuminated object that has a diameter of 200 meters to form a detectable intensity on the surface of the moon yet the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector has a surface area of one square meter which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a hoax. In addition, the 2.3 W laser beam, after propagating a distance of 238,900 miles, to the moon, would disperse and forms a beam diameter of four miles at the moon. The laser expansion ratio is derived using the initial one inch diameter of the 2.3 W laser beam and the four mile (253,440 inches) diameter expansion of the laser beam's diameter after propagating 238,900 miles to the moon R = (253,440 inches) / (1 inch) = 253,440. Using an analogy, the 2.3 W laser beam is pointed at the moon forming a laser beam that intensity is distributed about a four mile circular diameter area at the moon. The intensity incident to the moon is then reflected by a four mile diameter mirror that is hypothetically situated on the surface of the moon which would form a beam diameter of R x 4 miles = 1,013,760 miles after the reflected four mile diameter laser beam propagates back to the earth; consequently, a 2.3 W laser beam's intensity cannot form a detectable intensity after propagating to the moon and back. The Caltech-MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is based on a 2.3 W laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating to the moon and back.
"Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble." (By Phil Plait | August 12, 2008, Discover online).
The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the minimum amount of rocket fuel required in descending the lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket re-entry. Using the analogy, the amount of fuel required to launch a payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending the same payload weight onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit using a descent rocket re-entry; consequently, the amount of fuel required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 15,083 lb. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb on the surface of the moon; consequently, to decent the lander onto the surface of the moon would be comparable to launching a 2,504 lb payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. Using the fuel-payload ratio R, the minimum amount of rocket fuel required to launch a 2,504 lb payload into the earth's orbit is (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb; consequently, to descent the 15,083 lb lander (moon weight of 2,504 lb) onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket requires 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel used in the lander descent is 18,000 lb which proves the lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon.
"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 23:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5951FC92.6C45@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #637658 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > "Einstein's Philosophy" > > One thing one does not see discuss anywhere is.. > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > What is his philosophy? > > I mean, just plain "Einstein's Philosophy"..without attaching any other > branches to it. > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > Okay...maybe too hard a question. > > How about, What is Relativity? Is it the name of a planet? > > Is it an object? A wave? A small particle? A force? What is it? > > It's just...Philosophy. > > Relativity is just....Behaviorism. > > Behaviorism A scientific approach that limits the study of psychology to > measurable or observable behavior. > Behaviorist perspective The psychological perspective primarily > concerned with observable behavior that > can be objectively recorded and with the relationships of observable > behavior to environmental stimuli. > > https://www.google.com/#q=behavior+definition+psychology > > Nothing to do with...physics. > > You need to change the name of that newsgroup to: > sci.philosophy.relativity > > 'When you sit with a pretty girl for two hours you think it's only a > minute, but > when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. > That's relativity." Now according to "Einstein's Philosophy", Relativity is "..relationships of observable behavior to environmental stimuli." that would be the sitting with a pretty girl, and sitting on a stove. How you behave between sitting on a stove and sitting with a pretty girl. The "environmental stimuli" would be a stove getting hotter. In physiology, a stimulus (plural stimuli) is a detectable change in the internal or external environment. The ability of an organism or organ to respond to external stimuli is called sensitivity. When a stimulus is applied to a sensory receptor, it normally elicits or influences a reflex via stimulus transduction. https://www.google.com/#q=environmental+stimuli+definition "The ability of an organism or organ to respond to external stimuli is called sensitivity." that would be Sitting with a pretty girl. Relativity is "Einstein's Philosophy".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-27 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59529000.3E9C@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #637897 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > "Einstein's Philosophy" > > > > One thing one does not see discuss anywhere is.. > > > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > > > What is his philosophy? > > > > I mean, just plain "Einstein's Philosophy"..without attaching any other > > branches to it. > > > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > > > Okay...maybe too hard a question. > > > > How about, What is Relativity? Is it the name of a planet? > > > > Is it an object? A wave? A small particle? A force? What is it? > > > > It's just...Philosophy. > > > > Relativity is just....Behaviorism. > > > > Behaviorism A scientific approach that limits the study of psychology to > > measurable or observable behavior. > > Behaviorist perspective The psychological perspective primarily > > concerned with observable behavior that > > can be objectively recorded and with the relationships of observable > > behavior to environmental stimuli. > > > > https://www.google.com/#q=behavior+definition+psychology > > > > Nothing to do with...physics. > > > > You need to change the name of that newsgroup to: > > sci.philosophy.relativity > > > > 'When you sit with a pretty girl for two hours you think it's only a > > minute, but > > when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. > > That's relativity." > > Now according to "Einstein's Philosophy", Relativity is > > "..relationships of observable > behavior to environmental stimuli." > > that would be the sitting with a pretty girl, and sitting on a stove. > > How you behave between sitting on a stove and sitting with a pretty girl. > > The "environmental stimuli" would be a stove getting hotter. > > In physiology, a stimulus (plural stimuli) is a detectable change in the internal or external environment. > The ability of an organism or organ to respond to external stimuli is called sensitivity. > When a stimulus is applied to a sensory receptor, it normally elicits or influences a reflex via stimulus transduction. > https://www.google.com/#q=environmental+stimuli+definition > > "The ability of an organism or organ to respond to external stimuli is called sensitivity." > > that would be Sitting with a pretty girl. > > Relativity is "Einstein's Philosophy". Now, if you study Einstein famouse quote: 'When you sit with a pretty girl for two hours you think it's only a minute, but when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. That's relativity." --Albert Einstein You will find all the same elements contained in the 'Twin Paradox'. Relativity is "Einstein's Philosophy". Relativity is in fact.. just a philosophy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f24eab6c-4d36-438f-b91b-4cf49ae38f4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #637658 |
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:25:27 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > "Einstein's Philosophy" > > One thing one does not see discuss anywhere is.. > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > What is his philosophy? > > I mean, just plain "Einstein's Philosophy"..without attaching any other > branches to it. > > > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > > > Okay...maybe too hard a question. > > > How about, What is Relativity? Is it the name of a planet? > > Is it an object? A wave? A small particle? A force? What is it? > > > It's just...Philosophy. > > Relativity is just....Behaviorism. > > > > Behaviorism A scientific approach that limits the study of psychology to > measurable or observable behavior. > Behaviorist perspective The psychological perspective primarily > concerned with observable behavior that > can be objectively recorded and with the relationships of observable > behavior to environmental stimuli. > > https://www.google.com/#q=behavior+definition+psychology > > > Nothing to do with...physics. > > > You need to change the name of that newsgroup to: > sci.philosophy.relativity > > > > > 'When you sit with a pretty girl for two hours you think it's only a > minute, but > when you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s two hours. > That's relativity." Relativity is in every science book in the library.Idiots how know nothing will tell you "Einstein is Wrong" Reality is they are sitting on their brains. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 19:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ojpfi4$crq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639348 |
<http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> [1], <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> aka "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> <snip SwineBert's idiotic Glazier> > The Starmaker wrote: > "Einstein's Philosophy" > One thing one does not see discuss anywhere is.. > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > What is his philosophy? > I mean, just plain "Einstein's Philosophy"..without attaching any other > branches to it. > What is "Einstein's Philosophy"? > Okay...maybe too hard a question. > How about, What is Relativity? Is it the name of a planet? > Is it an object? A wave? A small particle? A force? What is it? > It's just...Philosophy. > Relativity is just....Behaviorism. > > Behaviorism A scientific approach that limits the study of psychology to > measurable or observable behavior. > Behaviorist perspective The psychological perspective primarily > concerned with observable behavior that > can be objectively recorded and with the relationships of observable > behavior to environmental stimuli. > > https://www.google.com/#q=behavior+definition+psychology > > Nothing to do with...physics. > <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017> behold: Bert, you need to be reminded after every post of yours, for you to explain why & which one of your 17 theories turned you into a Face Shitter & a Criminal Graveyard Vandal. "Go figure" till you "Get the Picture", Glazier, you Swine.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web