Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #589521 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-16 00:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-19 09:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 58 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 00:43 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 00:57 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 02:20 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-16 10:22 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:24 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 00:47 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-16 22:29 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 22:47 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 12:12 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 09:55 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:41 -0500
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:27 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:02 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 16:05 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 19:03 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 19:09 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 20:49 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 22:33 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:42 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:04 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:38 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:25 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:31 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:06 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:21 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:44 -0500
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0600
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 16:59 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 17:24 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesgurlz@t-girls.com> - 2016-07-16 06:24 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:44 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:00 -0500
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-16 12:04 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 14:10 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:16 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-17 10:04 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 06:19 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-17 11:33 +0100
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 22:46 +0000
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-17 18:52 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-18 06:24 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 00:05 +0000
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-18 20:39 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-18 20:19 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 06:19 -0400
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 23:07 +0000
a particle in noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 18:44 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:55 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:59 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 12:29 -0500
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 11:24 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-17 12:07 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:26 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? yanarchi@hotmail.com - 2016-07-18 21:58 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 22:03 -0700
Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 09:25 -0700
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 00:43 -0700 |
| Subject | What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? |
| Message-ID | <6adc6040-e3c0-497c-927c-7a7b21ff6603@googlegroups.com> |
I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute. "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts." ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 00:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d29e65f9-51e7-4e5d-a02c-96b4011ad14c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589521 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > Deep down, everything is absolute. Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed absolute background. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 02:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16c53d4a-620e-4173-9a3b-6f53a0be6300@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589523 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed absolute background. > > > Mark L. Fergerson Why would I want to do that? Because you're a fucking moron? First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. Then maybe, if I feel like it, I may explain to you why everything is absolute and that the relative makes no sense without an absolute basis. Moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 10:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <segkobh02ecuuff52nrjmr46t8j4kou1ab@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #589528 |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the universe is self-referential?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0ba1086-11dc-4b45-adb9-5523f08fd6f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589531 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. > > What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? > > Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the > universe is self-referential? Are you a relativist? I am asking because this is precisely the kind of stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 00:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <md3mob5dlkcinh3o6tgpuknvls2o7t19kv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #589573 |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. >> >> What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? >> >> Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the >> universe is self-referential? > >Are you a relativist? I am asking because this is precisely the kind of stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. > >ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 22:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nmf557$1ro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #589621 |
"Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message news:md3mob5dlkcinh3o6tgpuknvls2o7t19kv@4ax.com... > Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a >>> >self-referential universe. >>> >>> What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? >>> >>> Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the >>> universe is self-referential? >> >>Are you a relativist? I am asking because this is precisely the kind of >>stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. >> >>ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > "Wally W." wrote: > "If you can't explain it simply, --- [1] ----- > you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein > hanson wrote: Wally, here are examples of AE's "simple" explanations: > ||| AE||| "People like us, who **believe** in physics, ||| AE||| know that the distinction between the ||| AE||| past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly ||| AE||| persistent illusion." > IOW, young Einstein's deranged mind was so badly twisted that his Weltbild was a state in which it did not matter when he did what, ... whether what he did was already done, or whether it was in the process of being done, or whether it was just a Gedanken fart that sh/w/could be done some day in the future. LOL. > But as Einstein aged and his SR/GR crock o'shit began to lose its luster he said: > |||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact |||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?" |||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to |||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they |||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality." > and finally 2 years before Einstein puffed, <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR in which Albert concluded that: ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ & that ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____ > and said |||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber". |||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead. (see link)] <http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> > Yet like with all BELIEFS, AE's disciples who are nothing but Einstein Dingleberries that worship Albert's Sphincter while dangling in the warm & cozy breeze of Einstein's GEDANKEN farts, do continue to proselytize for it, like all other faithful members of any other religion do. > GR is even worse, because GR STILL uses Newton's "G" DIRECTLY, no matter how badly Einstein Dingleberries jump up & down on Albert's Rubber Trampoline and try to deny it. -- The 2nd G in g_/uv is Newton's "G" which AE tried to get rid of but could NOT.... > So, much for the physics of SR & GR, wherefore all of its Believers have put a Dog cone (funnel) around their necks ... <http://tinyurl.com/Dog-Cone-for-Relativists> to limit their own pedestrian event-horizon in their vain hope to see SR's non-existant Light cones..... .... ahahahAHAHAHA > But to let you off the hook with you citing AE philosophy that is close to your heart, [1] there is another way you could look at it and solve your problem; by absorbing yourself into the timeless and aimless train of thought rxpressed by Secy of Def. Donald Rumsfeld who said: > ||| "There are known knowns. There are things we ||| know that we know. There are known unknowns. ||| That is to say there are things that we now know ||| we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. ||| And there are things we don't know we don't know." [Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing > Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahahanson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 22:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <51981b54-9d2c-4eda-8445-f897e4911a8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589623 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:30:18 PM UTC-7, hanson wrote: > "Wally W." <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote in message > news:md3mob5dlkcinh3o6tgpuknvls2o7t19kv@4ax.com... > > Louis Savain <mapou001@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: > >>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a > >>> >self-referential universe. > >>> > >>> What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? > >>> > >>> Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the > >>> universe is self-referential? > >> > >>Are you a relativist? I am asking because this is precisely the kind of > >>stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. > >> > >>ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > "Wally W." wrote: > > "If you can't explain it simply, --- [1] ----- > > you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein > > > hanson wrote: > Wally, here are examples of AE's "simple" explanations: > > > ||| AE||| "People like us, who **believe** in physics, > ||| AE||| know that the distinction between the > ||| AE||| past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly > ||| AE||| persistent illusion." > > > IOW, young Einstein's deranged mind was so badly > twisted that his Weltbild was a state in which it did > not matter when he did what, ... whether what he did > was already done, or whether it was in the process > of being done, or whether it was just a Gedanken fart > that sh/w/could be done some day in the future. LOL. > > > But as Einstein aged and his SR/GR crock o'shit began > to lose its luster he said: > > > |||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact > |||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?" > |||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to > |||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they > |||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality." > > > and finally 2 years before Einstein puffed, > <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR > in which Albert concluded that: > ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ & that > ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____ > > > and said > |||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber". > |||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead. (see link)] > <http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> > <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> > > > Yet like with all BELIEFS, AE's disciples who are nothing > but Einstein Dingleberries that worship Albert's Sphincter > while dangling in the warm & cozy breeze of Einstein's > GEDANKEN farts, do continue to proselytize for it, like > all other faithful members of any other religion do. > > > GR is even worse, because GR STILL uses Newton's "G" > DIRECTLY, no matter how badly Einstein Dingleberries > jump up & down on Albert's Rubber Trampoline and try to > deny it. -- The 2nd G in g_/uv is Newton's "G" which AE > tried to get rid of but could NOT.... > > > So, much for the physics of SR & GR, wherefore all of its > Believers have put a Dog cone (funnel) around their necks ... > <http://tinyurl.com/Dog-Cone-for-Relativists> to limit their > own pedestrian event-horizon in their vain hope to see > SR's non-existant Light cones..... .... ahahahAHAHAHA > > > But to let you off the hook with you citing AE philosophy > that is close to your heart, [1] there is another way you could > look at it and solve your problem; by absorbing yourself into > the timeless and aimless train of thought rxpressed by > Secy of Def. Donald Rumsfeld who said: > > > ||| "There are known knowns. There are things we > ||| know that we know. There are known unknowns. > ||| That is to say there are things that we now know > ||| we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. > ||| And there are things we don't know we don't know." > [Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing > > > Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahahahanson LOL. This is fucking funny. You haven't lost your touch after all those years, Hanson. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 12:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gabnob5sev42h5fl12n5cq4ij0fb3q8rhf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #589573 |
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. >> >> What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? >> >> Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the >> universe is self-referential? > >Are you a relativist? ... that depends ... :) >I am asking because this is precisely the kind of stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. Your rant is not clear. Are you saying the universe is self-referential? If so, or not, what is your point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ab54c00-009d-43ff-b3bb-a5377eeda465@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589644 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:12:48 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> >First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a self-referential universe. > >> > >> What is wrong with the universe being self-referential? > >> > >> Or what point do you want to make based on a conclusion that the > >> universe is self-referential? > > > >Are you a relativist? > > ... that depends ... > > :) > > >I am asking because this is precisely the kind of stupid question I would expect from a brain-dead relativist. > > Your rant is not clear. > > Are you saying the universe is self-referential? No. It is you, relativists, who insist that the universe is self-referential. And when this fact is pointed out to you, you ask, what is wrong with self-reference? You should instead ask yourselves, why are we so fucking stupid? > If so, or not, what is your point? My point is that you relativists are fucking stupid to the point of absurdity. Now go pack sand or something. You bore me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgu2i$14dj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589653 |
On 7/17/2016 11:55 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:12:48 AM UTC-7, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 14:24:37 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com >> wrote: >> > > No. It is you, relativists, who insist that the universe is > self-referential. And when this fact is pointed out to you, you ask, > what is wrong with self-reference? You should instead ask yourselves, > why are we so fucking stupid? your self referencing is narcissistic. > >> If so, or not, what is your point? > > My point is that you relativists are fucking stupid to the point of > absurdity. Now go pack sand or something. You bore me. "pack sand" ? you mean "pound sand". Being bored is a sign the Devil is at play.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 12:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6d7a5b7-00db-444e-9bb6-66f8179320ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589528 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed > > absolute background. > > Why would I want to do that? You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a fixed background against which all motions may be measured. I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the same measurements against the same background. You can't do that with your mythical background. > Because you're a fucking moron? Aww, are your feelings hurt again? > First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a > self-referential universe I don't think "self referential" means what you think it does. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fde8687f-4eae-41ca-9b68-4467d1b9ad99@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589662 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed > > > absolute background. > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the same measurements against the same background. The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is absolute. The relative is abstract. It does not exist physically. It's a relation after all. > You can't do that with your mythical background. Fuck you and your background. Absolute means independent. It needs no fucking background to be relative to. True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the property of some nonexistent space or background. Get a fucking clue. > > Because you're a fucking moron? > > Aww, are your feelings hurt again? No. I just enjoy heaping contempt and ridicule o liars and con artists. It makes me feel good. > > First explain how a universe in which everything is relative is not a > > self-referential universe > > I don't think "self referential" means what you think it does. I don't fucking care what you think. Like all relativists, you're a fucking moron. Pack your opinion up your ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <053c1bb5-8e5f-4c60-84de-a04426af7db8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589666 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed > > > > absolute background. > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the same > > measurements against the same background. > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > absolute. No, it doesn't. Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. That's what "relative motion" means. "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its motion to. > The relative is abstract. False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you abandon it at once. > It does not exist physically. That which is measurable, is physical. > It's a relation after all. Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist physically"? > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > Absolute means independent. And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > property of some nonexistent space or background. Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning any other physical object*. I'll wait right here. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c387c04b-075a-47ed-970a-b7309b154328@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589713 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed fixed > > > > > absolute background. > > > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the same > > > measurements against the same background. > > > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > > absolute. > > No, it doesn't. > > Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. > > That's what "relative motion" means. > > "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its motion to. > > > The relative is abstract. > > False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you abandon it at once. > > > It does not exist physically. > > That which is measurable, is physical. > > > It's a relation after all. > > Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist physically"? > > > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > > > Absolute means independent. > > And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > > > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > > property of some nonexistent space or background. > > Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning any other physical object*. > > I'll wait right here. Fuck you, I have to do no such thing. You are a mental midget. I have no desire to educate your stupid ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24435717-304a-46e9-8a25-89958c11fe7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589716 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:28:11 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed > > > > > > fixed absolute background. > > > > > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the > > > > same measurements against the same background. > > > > > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > > > absolute. > > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. > > > > That's what "relative motion" means. > > > > "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a > > reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in > > assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its > > motion to. > > > > > The relative is abstract. > > > > False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you > > abandon it at once. > > > > > It does not exist physically. > > > > That which is measurable, is physical. > > > > > It's a relation after all. > > > > Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist > > physically"? > > > > > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > > > > > Absolute means independent. > > > > And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be > > described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > > > > > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > > > property of some nonexistent space or background. > > > > Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the > > "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning > > any other physical object*. > > > > I'll wait right here. > > Fuck you, I have to do no such thing. So, you can't demonstrate, or even explain, absolute motion. I'm not surprised. > You are a mental midget. This is typical of the pseudoscientist. When your bullshit is shown to be bullshit you resort to ad hominem. > I have no _desire_ to educate your stupid ass. You have nothing to offer. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 19:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4cbd980-1800-43cd-8d75-d4c2e353c422@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589727 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:28:11 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed > > > > > > > fixed absolute background. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > > > > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > > > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > > > > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > > > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the > > > > > same measurements against the same background. > > > > > > > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > > > > absolute. > > > > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > > > Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. > > > > > > That's what "relative motion" means. > > > > > > "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a > > > reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in > > > assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its > > > motion to. > > > > > > > The relative is abstract. > > > > > > False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you > > > abandon it at once. > > > > > > > It does not exist physically. > > > > > > That which is measurable, is physical. > > > > > > > It's a relation after all. > > > > > > Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist > > > physically"? > > > > > > > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > > > > > > > Absolute means independent. > > > > > > And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be > > > described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > > > > > > > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > > > > property of some nonexistent space or background. > > > > > > Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the > > > "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning > > > any other physical object*. > > > > > > I'll wait right here. > > > > Fuck you, I have to do no such thing. > > So, you can't demonstrate, or even explain, absolute motion. I'm not surprised. > > > You are a mental midget. > > This is typical of the pseudoscientist. When your bullshit is shown to be bullshit you resort to ad hominem. > > > I have no _desire_ to educate your stupid ass. > > You have nothing to offer. > > > Mark L. Fergerson Fuck you. I don't owe you shit. Nor anybody in the physics community. I don't need your approval and you don't put food on my table. Even if you did, I would still tell you to kiss my ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 20:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <393b7eef-b095-4f9d-bac9-8997d16d92cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589728 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:09:07 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:28:11 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed > > > > > > > > fixed absolute background. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > > > > > > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > > > > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > > > > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the > > > > > > same measurements against the same background. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > > > > > absolute. > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > > > > > Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. > > > > > > > > That's what "relative motion" means. > > > > > > > > "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a > > > > reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in > > > > assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its > > > > motion to. > > > > > > > > > The relative is abstract. > > > > > > > > False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you > > > > abandon it at once. > > > > > > > > > It does not exist physically. > > > > > > > > That which is measurable, is physical. > > > > > > > > > It's a relation after all. > > > > > > > > Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist > > > > physically"? > > > > > > > > > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > > > > > > > > > Absolute means independent. > > > > > > > > And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be > > > > described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > > > > > > > > > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > > > > > property of some nonexistent space or background. > > > > > > > > Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the > > > > "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning > > > > any other physical object*. > > > > > > > > I'll wait right here. > > > > > > Fuck you, I have to do no such thing. > > > > So, you can't demonstrate, or even explain, absolute motion. I'm not surprised. > > > > > You are a mental midget. > > > > This is typical of the pseudoscientist. When your bullshit is shown to be bullshit you resort to ad hominem. > > > > > I have no _desire_ to educate your stupid ass. > > > > You have nothing to offer. > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > Fuck you. I don't owe you shit. Nor anybody in the physics community. I don't need your approval and you don't put food on my table. Even if you did, I would still tell you to kiss my ass. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... So... why are you here at all?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 22:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ef8831f-8bef-478f-b5f5-6ac907a68b17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589731 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:09:07 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 7:03:34 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:28:11 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:02:47 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 12:27:29 PM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:20:14 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:57:16 AM UTC-7, nu...@bid.nes wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deep down, everything is absolute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please describe how to affix measurement points to your assumed > > > > > > > > > fixed absolute background. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I want to do that? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You claim to believe in absolute motion. That means there must exist a > > > > > > > fixed background against which all motions may be measured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can measure movements of ants, cars, and airplanes against points on > > > > > > > Earth's surface. I can plant stakes in it so that others can make the > > > > > > > same measurements against the same background. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you can measure relative motion is proof that real motion is > > > > > > absolute. > > > > > > > > > > No, it doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > Motion *can* *not* be measured except with respect to other objects. > > > > > > > > > > That's what "relative motion" means. > > > > > > > > > > "Absolute motion" means that you don't need any other object to use as a > > > > > reference; you can just say that an object is moving. The problem comes in > > > > > assigning it a velocity, then you realize you have nothing to refer its > > > > > motion to. > > > > > > > > > > > The relative is abstract. > > > > > > > > > > False. I don't know where you picked up this silly idea. I recommend you > > > > > abandon it at once. > > > > > > > > > > > It does not exist physically. > > > > > > > > > > That which is measurable, is physical. > > > > > > > > > > > It's a relation after all. > > > > > > > > > > Now you are claiming that all "relations" are "abstract" and don't "exist > > > > > physically"? > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't do that with your mythical background. > > > > > > > > > > > > Absolute means independent. > > > > > > > > > > And that's the problem. The motion of any given body *can* not* be > > > > > described independently of the state of motion of other bodies. > > > > > > > > > > > True or absolute position is an intrinsic property of particles, not the > > > > > > property of some nonexistent space or background. > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful! Now all you have to do is figure out how to describe the > > > > > "true" position and state of motion of, say, the Earth, *without mentioning > > > > > any other physical object*. > > > > > > > > > > I'll wait right here. > > > > > > > > Fuck you, I have to do no such thing. > > > > > > So, you can't demonstrate, or even explain, absolute motion. I'm not surprised. > > > > > > > You are a mental midget. > > > > > > This is typical of the pseudoscientist. When your bullshit is shown to be bullshit you resort to ad hominem. > > > > > > > I have no _desire_ to educate your stupid ass. > > > > > > You have nothing to offer. > > > > > > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > > > Fuck you. I don't owe you shit. Nor anybody in the physics community. I don't need your approval and you don't put food on my table. Even if you did, I would still tell you to kiss my ass. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > So... why are you here at all? I just enjoy rubbing your noses in your own shit and expose your ignorance and cluelessness. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7a579e2-8810-455f-9195-9fc21b862b27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589736 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:33:52 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 8:49:22 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > So... why are you here at all? > > I just enjoy rubbing your noses in your own shit and expose your ignorance and cluelessness. The problem, of course, is that you have done no such thing... in fact, you have only enhanced the reality of your own ignorance and cluelessness...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web