Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #589377 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 184 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-14 23:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 11:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:11 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-17 16:30 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 00:16 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 09:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-18 22:55 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:44 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 09:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 08:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 11:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:22 -0500
glightinos noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:40 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 09:59 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 12:59 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 09:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 10:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 12:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 13:25 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 11:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:33 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-18 14:01 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 16:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-18 19:02 -0400
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 16:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:46 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 11:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 13:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:19 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 14:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 12:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 15:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 13:26 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 16:36 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> - 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700
light is waves through the electronic matters of free space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:53 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:37 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:12 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:51 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 19:18 +0000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:50 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:00 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:52 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 21:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:05 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-27 18:36 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 13:08 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-28 00:15 +0200
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:05 +0200
i.q at most zero noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:19 -0700
Light (was: i.q at most zero) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-29 07:16 +0200
Re: Light (was: i.q at most zero) LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 22:34 -0700
see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:38 -0700
Re: see _Light, a history: Fermat's complete correspondence on light_ brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:38 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:15 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 12:54 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:41 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:43 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 13:49 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:01 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:06 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:17 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 14:29 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 14:23 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 12:33 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-15 16:58 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 13:34 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 15:29 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:14 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 17:55 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 18:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 19:47 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 14:08 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 15:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 14:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:56 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:02 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:38 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:46 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:36 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:45 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:48 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 15:10 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 18:18 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 19:40 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 23:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 00:35 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:24 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-16 22:22 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:22 -0500
all properties of light are wave(y\s, including the photon-electrical effect noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-15 16:42 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:37 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:15 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:39 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 12:06 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 10:17 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 21:05 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:47 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity and light question Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-27 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:56 -0500
Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-27 11:19 -0700
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4d439c9-d312-4bbc-a8fa-a79ed122a44c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589488 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just for the record: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > > > > > > > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > > > > > > No, Dr. Bahtim is exactly right, and you are hopelessly wrong... > > > > > Fuck you too. I know what acceleration means. > > > > You are bragging. I'll bet you don't. Prove me wrong... > > Yeah, I got your proof hanging. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... Clearly, you are bat-shit crazy... but still, you should have no trouble with my request. Speak up or GTFO...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <997bd25d-9691-430c-b0a4-138902ce5c90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589493 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:41 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for the record: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > > > > > > > > No, Dr. Bahtim is exactly right, and you are hopelessly wrong... > > > > > > > Fuck you too. I know what acceleration means. > > > > > > You are bragging. I'll bet you don't. Prove me wrong... > > > > Yeah, I got your proof hanging. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > > Clearly, you are bat-shit crazy... but still, you should have no trouble with my request. Speak up or GTFO... Eat shit, maggot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 17:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79577081-2756-4b63-9449-cb73e232ccb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589498 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:14:57 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:41 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for the record: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dr. Bahtim is exactly right, and you are hopelessly wrong... > > > > > > > > > Fuck you too. I know what acceleration means. > > > > > > > > You are bragging. I'll bet you don't. Prove me wrong... > > > > > > Yeah, I got your proof hanging. > > > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > > > > Clearly, you are bat-shit crazy... but still, you should have no trouble with my request. Speak up or GTFO... > > Eat shit, maggot. A bit hostile, are we? Able to dish it out, but unable to take it? If you can't stand the heat, perhaps you should exit the kitchen. You are all bark and no bite. You haven't displayed a lick of physics knowledge and it is easy to see that you couldn't back your tenuous positions if your life depended on it. You didn't come here to actually learn anything, but rather only to sling your own feces around, like an ape at the zoo. Move along, folks, absolutely nothing to see here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <645e6b98-7bec-4166-9654-4c9123923cb4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589503 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:55:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:14:57 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:46:41 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:17:06 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:15:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:29:24 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 3:19:37 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:34:27 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just for the record: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, Dr. Bahtim is exactly right, and you are hopelessly wrong... > > > > > > > > > > > Fuck you too. I know what acceleration means. > > > > > > > > > > You are bragging. I'll bet you don't. Prove me wrong... > > > > > > > > Yeah, I got your proof hanging. > > > > > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > > > > > > Clearly, you are bat-shit crazy... but still, you should have no trouble with my request. Speak up or GTFO... > > > > Eat shit, maggot. > > A bit hostile, are we? Able to dish it out, but unable to take it? > > If you can't stand the heat, perhaps you should exit the kitchen. > > You are all bark and no bite. You haven't displayed a lick of physics knowledge and it is easy to see that you couldn't back your tenuous positions if your life depended on it. You didn't come here to actually learn anything, but rather only to sling your own feces around, like an ape at the zoo. > > Move along, folks, absolutely nothing to see here. Go pack sand. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 19:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49743921-7590-410a-baf3-ee1f26855800@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589507 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 6:08:04 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 5:55:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > Move along, folks, absolutely nothing to see here. > > Go pack sand. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... Make that LESS than nothing to see here...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 15:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmgqi5$tee$11@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589461 |
On 7/15/2016 3:34 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:18:40 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? >>> >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >> >> Just for the record: >> >> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf >> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational >> field with the same acceleration as material bodies." >> >> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > Oops. That link does not work anymore. I'll see if I can find a new one. But then again, it's very probable that the > relativist "disappeared" the original text because it contradicts relativity theory. This is Big Brother science for you. > It's always about politics, intimidation and fear. Oh good grief. Paranoia much? There is nothing in what Dr. Bahrim said that is in conflict with anything that Dr. Carlip said. Notice that Dr. Carlip said that light falls twice as fast as SLOW material bodies. Slow material bodies do not fall at the same rate as fast material bodies, and there is NOTHING you're going to find anywhere in Einstein's writings or otherwise that says otherwise. How you interpret a *picture* is on you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-17 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb457152-6991-4295-b5fc-157c36a9c983@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589681 |
On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 3:34 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:18:40 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > >>> > >>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > >> > >> Just for the record: > >> > >> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > >> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational > >> field with the same acceleration as material bodies." > >> > >> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > > Oops. That link does not work anymore. I'll see if I can find a new one. But then again, it's very probable that the > > relativist "disappeared" the original text because it contradicts relativity theory. This is Big Brother science for you. > > It's always about politics, intimidation and fear. > > Oh good grief. Paranoia much? > > There is nothing in what Dr. Bahrim said that is in conflict with > anything that Dr. Carlip said. Notice that Dr. Carlip said that light > falls twice as fast as SLOW material bodies. Slow material bodies do not > fall at the same rate as fast material bodies, and there is NOTHING > you're going to find anywhere in Einstein's writings or otherwise that > says otherwise. How you interpret a *picture* is on you. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. I said what I had to say. If you don't get it,blame it on your own stupidity. Now go pack sand. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 06:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmif3c$1711$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589683 |
On 7/17/2016 4:08 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:41:47 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Oh good grief. Paranoia much? >> >> There is nothing in what Dr. Bahrim said that is in conflict with >> anything that Dr. Carlip said. Notice that Dr. Carlip said that light >> falls twice as fast as SLOW material bodies. Slow material bodies do not >> fall at the same rate as fast material bodies, and there is NOTHING >> you're going to find anywhere in Einstein's writings or otherwise that >> says otherwise. How you interpret a *picture* is on you. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Fuck you. I said what I had to say. If you don't get it,blame it on your own stupidity. Now go pack sand. You certainly have the right to say anything stupid that crosses your mind. You certainly have the right to stay ignorant of physics by refusing to read. And you can bet I get that about you. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 15:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmbhke$csc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589458 |
On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? >> >> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > Just for the record: > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field > with the same acceleration as material bodies." It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain the equivalence principle. > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ef2fee2b-ad38-4cdc-b20e-014dacfe0150@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589462 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > >> > >> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > > Just for the record: > > > > http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field > > with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] > > The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in > the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same > rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that > implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain > the equivalence principle. > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > You're a fucking moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmdsrl$17te$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589464 |
On 7/15/2016 4:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? >>>> >>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. >>> >>> Just for the record: >>> >>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf >>> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field >>> with the same acceleration as material bodies." >> >> It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] >> >> The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in >> the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same >> rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that >> implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain >> the equivalence principle. >> >>> >>> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. >>> > You're a fucking moron. > Such a well-reasoned response. But go ahead, read some books and see if Einstein, or the elevator gedanken, or any treatment of general relativity ever makes the claim that the acceleration of bodies is independent of their speed. Or the alternative might be that you say that this conclusion (that objects should all fall at the same rate regardless of speed) is yours and yours alone, and that these statements are in conflict with your conclusion. I'd have no problem with that at all. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04b66304-95a8-43f6-9a8a-e44bbe1ff162@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589553 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:02:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/15/2016 4:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > >>>> > >>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > >>> > >>> Just for the record: > >>> > >>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > >>> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field > >>> with the same acceleration as material bodies." > >> > >> It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] > >> > >> The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in > >> the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same > >> rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that > >> implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain > >> the equivalence principle. > >> > >>> > >>> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > >>> > > You're a fucking moron. > > > > Such a well-reasoned response. > > But go ahead, read some books and see if Einstein, or the elevator > gedanken, or any treatment of general relativity ever makes the claim > that the acceleration of bodies is independent of their speed. > > Or the alternative might be that you say that this conclusion (that > objects should all fall at the same rate regardless of speed) is yours > and yours alone, and that these statements are in conflict with your > conclusion. I'd have no problem with that at all. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. The speed thing was fudged in by Einstein in order to make their chicken feather voodoo theory agree with observation. Relativists have no fucking idea why photons fall faster than massive objects. Fudging an equation is not an explanation. It's Ptolemaic epicycles all over again. It's a sign of total fucking cluelessness. Now go pack yams up your ass and see if I give a rat's ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bc4a7a6-550a-4727-9790-d1d946c9b6ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589560 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:56:57 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:02:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/15/2016 4:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > >>>> > > >>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > >>> > > >>> Just for the record: > > >>> > > >>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > >>> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field > > >>> with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > >> > > >> It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] > > >> > > >> The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in > > >> the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same > > >> rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that > > >> implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain > > >> the equivalence principle. > > >> > > >>> > > >>> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > >>> > > > You're a fucking moron. > > > > > > > Such a well-reasoned response. > > > > But go ahead, read some books and see if Einstein, or the elevator > > gedanken, or any treatment of general relativity ever makes the claim > > that the acceleration of bodies is independent of their speed. > > > > Or the alternative might be that you say that this conclusion (that > > objects should all fall at the same rate regardless of speed) is yours > > and yours alone, and that these statements are in conflict with your > > conclusion. I'd have no problem with that at all. > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. The speed thing was fudged in by Einstein in order to make their chicken feather voodoo theory agree with observation. Relativists have no fucking idea why photons fall faster than massive objects. Fudging an equation is not an explanation. It's Ptolemaic epicycles all over again. It's a sign of total fucking cluelessness. > > Now go pack yams up your ass and see if I give a rat's ass. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49e4eabc-0777-4e95-a07d-2a26a5ca3fae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589570 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:02:38 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:56:57 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 11:02:34 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 7/15/2016 4:03 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:38:43 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 7/15/2016 3:18 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 11:01:12 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>>> Is there a hypothesis that explains why light falls twice as fast as mass? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Please, don't offer equations because math explain nothing. On the contrary, it's the math that needs a physical explanation. > > > >>> > > > >>> Just for the record: > > > >>> > > > >>> http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf > > > >>> Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field > > > >>> with the same acceleration as material bodies." > > > >> > > > >> It does. Light and material bodies both fall at the rate G[1 + (v/c)^2 ] > > > >> > > > >> The rate obviously varies with v for ALL bodies, and there is nothing in > > > >> the statement above that says that all bodies accelerate at the same > > > >> rate in a gravitational field regardless of their speed. Nor is that > > > >> implied ANYWHERE in the elevator gedanken that Einstein used to explain > > > >> the equivalence principle. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> The problem is that it doesn't. The equivalence principle is BS. > > > >>> > > > > You're a fucking moron. > > > > > > > > > > Such a well-reasoned response. > > > > > > But go ahead, read some books and see if Einstein, or the elevator > > > gedanken, or any treatment of general relativity ever makes the claim > > > that the acceleration of bodies is independent of their speed. > > > > > > Or the alternative might be that you say that this conclusion (that > > > objects should all fall at the same rate regardless of speed) is yours > > > and yours alone, and that these statements are in conflict with your > > > conclusion. I'd have no problem with that at all. > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. The speed thing was fudged in by Einstein in order to make their chicken feather voodoo theory agree with observation. Relativists have no fucking idea why photons fall faster than massive objects. Fudging an equation is not an explanation. It's Ptolemaic epicycles all over again. It's a sign of total fucking cluelessness. > > > > Now go pack yams up your ass and see if I give a rat's ass. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid... LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nme9fm$1q06$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589571 |
On 7/16/2016 4:10 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid... > LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... The definition of acceleration doesn't have much to do with relativity. Just stick to classical physics and prove what you claim is obvious. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f506152-5430-4478-a3ac-eb6f30de196f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589577 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:38:03 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/16/2016 4:10 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >> The problem is, of course, that you don't have any idea what the definition is for 'acceleration', since you are stump-stupid... > > LOL. No, the problem is that you and Bodkin take turn packing relativistic yams up each other's ass. Skin and all. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > The definition of acceleration doesn't have much to do with relativity. > Just stick to classical physics and prove what you claim is obvious. I just did but it flew over your little pointy head. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nme9c0$1q06$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589560 |
On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated > elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c876c7b-e0b8-4bac-9f26-026fd019f558@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589576 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated > > elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. > > Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Acceleration is absolute, dumbass. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmea2q$1qos$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #589578 |
On 7/16/2016 4:45 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated >>> elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. >> >> Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Acceleration is absolute, dumbass. And so how does your conclusion follow? > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-16 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25fda1b7-f0be-423d-86e5-f234b077b55d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #589580 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:48:16 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/16/2016 4:45 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/16/2016 2:56 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> You are a moron. It's simple common sense to expect everything in an accelerated > >>> elevator to accelerate at the same rate. It follows from elementary geometry and arithmetic. > >> > >> Really? Do tell. Show me how it follows. This should be fun. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Acceleration is absolute, dumbass. > > And so how does your conclusion follow? > > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > Why do relativists insists on being so fuckung dense? What's up with that shit? Doesn't the fact that acceleration is absolute tell you that it does not depend on speed? Doesn't this tell you that, if an elevator is accelerating, its acceleration is the same relative to everything else? Does this not tell you that, if photons are observed to accelerate differently in the gravitational field than massive particles, gravity and acceleration are not equivalent? Get a fucking clue, moron. I no longer rejoice at your stupidity. It's no longer fucking funny. It's fucking pathetic. Like I said, go pack yams up your ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web