Discussion:
Physics Students Revolt Against the Teaching of Relativity.
(too old to reply)
HGW
2018-02-13 00:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-13 00:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
There had to be some kind of beginning and they are always the
most backwards.

Mitchell Raemsch
JanPB
2018-02-13 01:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Send it to Hollywood. They always look for fantasy writers.

--
Jan
Dono,
2018-02-13 14:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Spam. By utter cretin, Ralph Rabid
HGW
2018-02-13 21:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Spam. By utter cretin, Henry Rabid.
Can you blame them? Students aren't stupid. Einstein merely rewrote LET backwards and then claimed the aether was
superfluous.
There is obviously no aether and so Einstein's second postulate is null and void. It clearly relies on an absolute
reference frame to unify light speeds from differently moving sources.
--
HGW
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-13 22:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching
of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately removed from all
courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get
a decent job after graduating when we are being brainwashed into
accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of
1905?".
--
HGW
Spam. By utter cretin, Henry Rabid.
Just another fake "quote" from a congenital liar.
Post by HGW
Can you blame them?
"Them"? You ain't a "them"
Post by HGW
Students aren't stupid.
They would be stupid if they actually did what you accused them of.
Post by HGW
Einstein merely rewrote LET backwards and then claimed the aether was
superfluous.
Just another lie from Ralphie-boy's lying keyboard.
Post by HGW
There is obviously no aether and so Einstein's second postulate is null
and void.
What an asinine piece of illogic!
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources.
--
HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath. You
should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of physics
here cause you to cease to exist.
Bojovnik Háèem
2018-02-17 14:59:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources. -- HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
benj
2018-02-17 19:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources. -- HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.

There is no aether drift. Period.
HGW
2018-02-18 05:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources. -- HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
--
HGW
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-18 05:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HGW
- show quoted text -
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
--
HGW

Ridiculous Brain Farting Dotarded OBFUSCATOR

BULK MODULUS UNIVERSE

(0.5 (m^2)) / (2.17647019e-8 (kg / planck length)) = 3.71295775e-28 m^3 / kg

Friedmann Density

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

(1.21029545e+44 newtons) / ((2.17647019e-8 (kg / planck length))^2) = 6.67407999e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/AGZXdnsXSjlexmSf2

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ZLLzDTHfnVC3p0Gc2

((((hbar * G) / (c^3))^2) * ((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2)))) / (((6.52489349338 ((kg m) / s)) / c)^2) = 6.67408001e-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2

((Planck Pressure)/(Planck Density))^0.5 = c

(Planck Area)^2 / Planck Pressure / (Planck Mass)^2 = G


(((((hbar * G) / (c^3))^2) * ((c^7) / (hbar * (G^2)))) / ((6.52489349338 ((kg m) / s))^2)) / 2 = 3.71295775e-28 m / kg

(Planck Area)^2 / Planck Pressure / (Planck momentum )^2 /2 = Friedmann Density

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KrN4t4j1517r60RDSXl_QO1bsH3-8KgX/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7X9uO_NncDD2QuWFQ7bKK9D07jK8Gd2/view?usp=sharing
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-18 12:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources. -- HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
--
HGW
Non sequitur. Typical illogical barfing from Baloney-breath.
HGW
2018-02-18 22:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/02/18 23:30, Gary Harnagel wrote:
baloney-breath.
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
--
HGW
Non sequitur. Typical illogical barfing from Baloney-breath.
Poor little god fearing gawy still hasn't learned that physics is far too hard for him.
--
HGW
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-19 00:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Poor little god fearing gawy still hasn't learned that physics is far too hard for him.
Look who's talking! Ralph, your physics knowledge is clearly less than that of the average high school physics student...
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-19 02:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
--
HGW
Non sequitur. Typical illogical barfing from Baloney-breath.
Poor little god fearing gawy still hasn't learned that physics is far too hard for him.
--
HGW
Poor little lying Ralphie-boy, still hasn't learned any logic in his little
empty head. SR works just fine with no ether, as anyone with a brain knows.
JanPB
2018-02-19 04:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
It clearly relies on an absolute reference frame to unify light speeds
from differently moving sources. -- HGW
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says, baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.

--
Jan
HGW
2018-02-19 23:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Post by JanPB
-- Jan
--
HGW
JanPB
2018-02-20 00:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?

--
Jan
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-20 16:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?
Spacetime has no consistence. It's not needed.
JanPB
2018-02-20 22:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Evonne Lamarr
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?
Spacetime has no consistence. It's not needed.
As I said, the stupidity of these posts here.

--
Jan
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-20 23:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by Evonne Lamarr
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?
Spacetime has no consistence. It's not needed.
As I said, the stupidity of these posts here.
then you could derive the spacetime charge density ρ from the Poisson's
equation, where ε0 is the permittivity of free space, εr is the relative
permittivity and V is the electric scalar potential.
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-20 23:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Evonne Lamarr
Post by JanPB
Post by Evonne Lamarr
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?
Spacetime has no consistence. It's not needed.
As I said, the stupidity of these posts here.
then you could derive the spacetime charge density ρ from the Poisson's
equation, where ε0 is the permittivity of free space, εr is the relative
permittivity and V is the electric scalar potential.
Wait, those are tensors, I should add. Which is kind of cool.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 23:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Evonne Lamarr
- hide quoted text -
Post by JanPB
Post by Evonne Lamarr
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
Does that mean you still believe in an aether?
Do you have any proof that it exists?
Can't you read?
Spacetime has no consistence. It's not needed.
As I said, the stupidity of these posts here.
then you could derive the spacetime charge density ρ from the Poisson's
equation, where ε0 is the permittivity of free space, εr is the relative
permittivity and V is the electric scalar potential.


Been there, done that



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KrN4t4j1517r60RDSXl_QO1bsH3-8KgX/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7X9uO_NncDD2QuWFQ7bKK9D07jK8Gd2/view?usp=sharing

1 electron mass*G/c^2/ Planck length * 1.50122E+23 /(2pi) = 1
Koobee Wublee
2018-02-19 23:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words. The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform which demands the very existence of the Aether. Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>

# Another chapter of discussion. <shrug>
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 00:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words. The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform which demands the very existence of the Aether. Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>

# Another chapter of discussion. <shrug>

The Larmor Transformation is nice.

((2 / 3) * (((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 2.41891634e+52 watts


((((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 3.6283745e+52 Planck Watts
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 01:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words. The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform which demands the very existence of the Aether. Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>

# Another chapter of discussion. <shrug>

The Larmor Transformation is nice.

((2 / 3) * (((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 2.41891634e+52 watts


((((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 3.6283745e+52 Planck Watts

(((c^5) / G) / 3) * 2 = 2.41891634e+52 watts


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor


Larmor proposed that the aether could be represented as a homogeneous fluid medium which was perfectly incompressible and elastic. Larmor believed the aether was separate from matter. He united Lord Kelvin's model of spinning gyrostats (see Vortex theory of the atom) with this theory.

Parallel to the development of Lorentz ether theory, Larmor published the Lorentz transformations in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1897 some two years before Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1904) and eight years before Albert Einstein (1905). Larmor however did not possess the correct velocity transformations, which include the addition of velocities law, which were later discovered by Henri Poincaré. Larmor predicted the phenomenon of time dilation, at least for orbiting electrons, and verified that the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction (length contraction) should occur for bodies whose atoms were held together by electromagnetic forces. In his book Aether and Matter (1900), he again presented the Lorentz transformations, time dilation and length contraction (treating these as dynamic rather than kinematic effects). Larmor opposed Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, though he supported it for a short time. Larmor rejected both the curvature of space and the special theory of relativity, to the extent that he claimed that an absolute time was essential to astronomy (Larmor 1924, 1927).

Larmor held that matter consisted of particles moving in the aether. Larmor believed the source of electric charge was a "particle" (which as early as 1894 he was referring to as the electron). Thus, in what was apparently the first specific prediction of time dilation, he wrote "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio (1 – v2/c2)1/2" (Larmor 1897). Larmor held that the flow of charged particles constitutes the current of conduction (but was not part of the atom). Larmor calculated the rate of energy radiation from an accelerating electron. Larmor explained the splitting of the spectral lines in a magnetic field by the oscillation of electrons.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 03:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1 / ((electron mass * (2.42631e-12 m) * ((1 / (((2 * pi * (6.52485^2))^0.5) (m / (s^2))))^2)) / c) = 3.62832648e+52



Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words. The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform which demands the very existence of the Aether. Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>

# Another chapter of discussion. <shrug>

The Larmor Transformation is nice.

((2 / 3) * (((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 2.41891634e+52 watts


((((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 3.6283745e+52 Planck Watts


3.62832648e+52
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 04:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
1 / ((electron mass * (2.42631e-12 m) * ((1 / (((2 * pi * (6.52485^2))^0.5) (m / (s^2))))^2)) / c) = 3.62832648e+52
Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words. The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform which demands the very existence of the Aether. Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>
# Another chapter of discussion. <shrug>
The Larmor Transformation is nice.
((2 / 3) * (((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 2.41891634e+52 watts
((((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 3.6283745e+52 Planck Watts
3.62832648e+52
((((hbar * c) / G)^0.5) * Planck length * ((c^7) / (hbar * G))) / c = 3.6283745e+52 Planck Watts


1 / ((((electron mass * planck length) / hbar) * c) / (2 * pi)) = 1.50121745e+23


(2pi) / ((electron mass / (6.52485 ((m kg) / s))) * c) = 1.50120744e+23


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KrN4t4j1517r60RDSXl_QO1bsH3-8KgX/view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g7X9uO_NncDD2QuWFQ7bKK9D07jK8Gd2/view?usp=sharing

Entropic gravity;

secondary Bjerknes force (FB2)

FB2 can change sign under certain circumstances.


http://cds.cern.ch/record/516564/files/0109005.pdf
JanPB
2018-02-20 00:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.

--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
2018-02-20 06:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Do you have copyright on these words? <shrug>
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Koobee Wublee can assure you that Koobee Wublee understands this subject infinitely better than you. <shrug>
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s
transforms, there is no difference in GR based on the Lorentz or
Larmor’s transform (#). Thus, GR also demands the very existence
of the Aether. GR is another Aether theory. <shrug>
Hence, irrelevant.
Your comments reflect how fvcking scattered that your fvcking brain truly is. <shrug>
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 06:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
When there is a perfectly logical alternative to the fantastical Divinery of the Non-Aetherism of The Einstein Sycophantic boot lickers, why persist in the “No Medium” bull shittery & obfuscatory Fuckery ?

Bulk Modulus Universe
HGW
2018-02-20 21:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
--
HGW
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-20 22:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to instantly find
a common maximum speed in any particular direction?
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 22:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to instantly find
a common maximum speed in any particular direction?

BULK MODULUS & WAVE SPEED

(PRESSURE/DENSITY)^0.5 = SPEED

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html#c1

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LLk2THuL5JeKKp4O2
HGW
2018-02-21 22:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to instantly find
a common maximum speed in any particular direction?
Can't answer, eh? I thought that would happen. I'll provide you with one...the absolute reference frame povided by he
(non-existent) aether that Einstein believed in.He even said so later.
--
HGW
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-21 23:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to instantly find
a common maximum speed in any particular direction?
Can't answer, eh? I thought that would happen.
I DID answer, stupid lying weasel. Your REAL problem is that YOU can't
answer MY question, so you "pretend" that I didn't answer yours. The
FACT that ALL accelerated particles have the speed of light as a limit
(as referred to the observer) is consistent with a massless particle
having the same limit.
Post by HGW
I'll provide you with one...the absolute reference frame povided by he
(non-existent) aether that Einstein believed in.He even said so later.
--
HGW
You are just a liar and an ignoramus. And the source frame is NOT an
"absolute reference frame" regardless of how many lies you tell.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-22 06:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to instantly find
a common maximum speed in any particular direction?
Can't answer, eh? I thought that would happen.
I DID answer, stupid lying weasel. Your REAL problem is that YOU can't
answer MY question, so you "pretend" that I didn't answer yours. The
FACT that ALL accelerated particles have the speed of light as a limit
(as referred to the observer)
Even your idiot guru was unable to hold such an idiocy
for a long time, so his GR shit rejects it.
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-22 20:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving
sources to instantly find a common speed in any particular
direction?
What, in your tiny mind, causes all accelerated particles to
instantly find a common maximum speed in any particular direction?
Can't answer, eh? I thought that would happen.
I DID answer, stupid lying weasel. Your REAL problem is that YOU can't
answer MY question, so you "pretend" that I didn't answer yours. The
FACT that ALL accelerated particles have the speed of light as a limit
(as referred to the observer) is consistent with a massless particle
having the same limit.
Yet another visiting professor from Brasil, talking like that. How many
visiting professors are there, in here??
Steve BH
2018-02-20 22:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
--
HGW
In my tiny mind, it's the fact that the electric and magnetic permittivity constants are the same anywhere in vacuum, and do not differ from place to place. Add cute equation for c by Maxwell, and stir.

How about you?
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-20 23:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-20 23:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
The stupidity of Einstein dingleberries is moronic beyond words.
Try using your own words next time.
Post by Koobee Wublee
The Lorentz transform aka SR is fudged from Larmor’s transform
No, it's not. You don't understand this _at all_.
Post by Koobee Wublee
which demands the very existence of the Aether.
Hence, irrelevant.
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Everything shares motion can have its own motion. Light's constant speed
is in the Mind of God...

Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
HGW
2018-02-21 22:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?

HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-21 23:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Post by HGW
HGW
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-22 06:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-22 15:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things. You have a mental
model of what a chair is, and you can apply that model to hundreds of
objects that all have different shapes, sizes, materials, colors, and
features like storage or foldability. So when we discuss chairs in general,
we may be talking about the model and not a specific instance. But if I
suggest that you sit in a chair, I’m certainly not telling you to recline
in a model.

The model’s value in representing reality is the whole point of modeling,
dear professional modeler.

Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing. The structure of
spacetime the real thing determines light’s motion. Dear professional
modeler.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-22 18:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things.
They do or they don't, dear poor amateur idiot, but even
representing them they don't affect them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-22 18:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things.
They do or they don't, dear poor amateur idiot, but even
representing them they don't affect them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course.
You have a small, repetitive, and unimaginative set of retorts when you
have nothing else to say.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-22 19:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things.
They do or they don't, dear poor amateur idiot, but even
representing them they don't affect them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course.
You have a small, repetitive, and unimaginative set of retorts when you
have nothing else to say.
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-22 19:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things.
They do or they don't, dear poor amateur idiot, but even
representing them they don't affect them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course.
You have a small, repetitive, and unimaginative set of retorts when you
have nothing else to say.
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years.
Who knows nothing about physics and who can’t cite anything he’s actually
read in physics books.
And who similarly believes that if “model” is in his job description, then
this makes him a master of all types of models, including physics models.
Whose conceit has run more than a little amok, flinging ego debris over the
countryside.
Post by m***@wp.pl
You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 05:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving sources
to instantly find a common speed in any
particular direction?
Post by JanPB
--
Jan
There is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
Odd, poor idiot, your spacetime is a model, isn't it?
How can it affect real light?
Models, dear professional modeler, represent real things.
They do or they don't, dear poor amateur idiot, but even
representing them they don't affect them.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Of course.
You have a small, repetitive, and unimaginative set of retorts when you
have nothing else to say.
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years.
Who knows nothing about physics and who can’t cite anything he’s actually
read in physics books.
You're imagining. And your precious physics doesn't
know ANYTHING about models. They are from a different
tale.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And who similarly believes that if “model” is in his job description, then
this makes him a master of all types of models, including physics models.
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're just
an arogant idiot believing he has a superior knowledge.
Whose conceit has run more than a little amok, flinging
ego debris over the countryside. Don't you like it?
So, fuck yourself.
Helmut Wabnig
2018-02-22 20:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.

Wozi builds professional engineering models.

And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.

Loading Image...

Look at Wozi in deep concentration.

w.
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-22 20:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model building engineer
for more than 20 years. You're an arogant, incompetent halfbrain
amateur.
Nothing serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all. Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else on the
whole world and in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_building#/media/File:Model-building-
p1030188.jpg Look at Wozi in deep concentration.

Yet, a trabant is not even a car, much less an "engineering model".
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 05:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
Helmut Wabnig
2018-02-23 07:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.

Tell us (the world) about YOUR PHYSICS.


w.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 10:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Helmut Wabnig
2018-02-23 14:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
we will be most thankful.

w.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-23 15:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
we will be most thankful.
w.
Reactionary rage is his lifestyle as well as his straitjacket. At some
point he encountered people within a certain class who made him feel small,
and so he has reacted by regarding the ENTIRE class with open disdain and
voicing that disgust over and over and over again, until he feels better.
Unfortunately this has led to a falsely inflated ego too.

So now we have a guy here who thinks that the whole discipline of physics
since Galileo has been useless, and he spends a significant chunk of EVERY
day vomiting the bile from his stomach to physics fans, perhaps in hopes of
getting others to join his little hate party.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 17:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
we will be most thankful.
w.
Reactionary rage is his lifestyle as well as his straitjacket. At some
point he encountered people within a certain class who made him feel small,
You mean woodworkers maybe, poor idiot?
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-23 18:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
we will be most thankful.
w.
Reactionary rage is his lifestyle as well as his straitjacket. At some
point he encountered people within a certain class who made him feel small,
You mean woodworkers maybe, poor idiot?
A woodworker made you feel small??
How?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 19:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
we will be most thankful.
w.
Reactionary rage is his lifestyle as well as his straitjacket. At some
point he encountered people within a certain class who made him feel small,
You mean woodworkers maybe, poor idiot?
A woodworker made you feel small??
How?
I jave no idea. Iy's your "fact"
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-23 17:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Post by Helmut Wabnig
Post by m***@wp.pl
Odd, poor idiot, once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years. You're an
arogant, incompetent halfbrain amateur. Nothing
serious can be told you.
Ah, that explains it all.
Wozi builds professional engineering models.
And he believes that job qualifies him to judge everything else
on the whole world and in the universe.
Your bunch of incompetent idiots, Wabi, isn't the
universe. You're only imagining.
You are always ready to rant,
be a little more positive.
Speaking to a bunch of idiots I'm descending to their
level, Wabi.
Oh, no, Wozi, you are such a brain gigant,
try to raise our level,
Your level? Like distorting someone's name?
I've already reached it, Wabi.
Python
2018-02-22 21:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... once again: I'm a professional model
building engineer for more than 20 years.
Ah ah ah ah ah! Now you are entertaining, Mr Wozniak! When
you are obviously joking. Good one!
HGW
2018-02-22 22:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
The model’s value in representing reality is the whole point of modeling,
dear professional modeler.
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing. The structure of
spacetime the real thing determines light’s motion.
HAHAHAHHHA! You are really funny today, Bodkin. You got it back to front again.
'Light's (wrongly presumed) motion' actually determines Einstein's silly 'spacetime'.

Making chairs would seem a better occupation for you than science.

HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-22 22:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
The model’s value in representing reality is the whole point of modeling,
dear professional modeler.
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing. The structure of
spacetime the real thing determines light’s motion.
HAHAHAHHHA! You are really funny today, Bodkin. You got it back to front again.
'Light's (wrongly presumed) motion' actually determines Einstein's silly 'spacetime'.
No it doesn’t.
The historical order of discovery has nothing to do with what causes what.
Post by HGW
Making chairs would seem a better occupation for you than science.
HGW
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2018-02-23 21:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing. The structure of
spacetime the real thing determines light’s motion.
HAHAHAHHHA! You are really funny today, Bodkin. You got it back to front again.
'Light's (wrongly presumed) motion' actually determines Einstein's silly 'spacetime'.
No it doesn’t.
The historical order of discovery has nothing to do with what causes what.
Well the idea of space/time was around in Newton's day. Nobody has produced any facts that might alter his view.
--
HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-23 23:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Spacetime the model represents spacetime the real thing. The structure of
spacetime the real thing determines light’s motion.
HAHAHAHHHA! You are really funny today, Bodkin. You got it back to front again.
'Light's (wrongly presumed) motion' actually determines Einstein's silly 'spacetime'.
No it doesn’t.
The historical order of discovery has nothing to do with what causes what.
Well the idea of space/time was around in Newton's day. Nobody has
produced any facts that might alter his view.
Newton believed that time was independent of space and that there was no
transformation that affected spatial coordinates that would also affect
time coordinates. There is ample information that this belief is untrue.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2018-02-24 22:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
No it doesn’t.
The historical order of discovery has nothing to do with what causes what.
Well the idea of space/time was around in Newton's day. Nobody has
produced any facts that might alter his view.
Newton believed that time was independent of space and that there was no
transformation that affected spatial coordinates that would also affect
time coordinates. There is ample information that this belief is untrue.
There is no such information...except in the minds of desperately deluded dingleberries.
--
HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-24 23:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
No it doesn’t.
The historical order of discovery has nothing to do with what causes what.
Well the idea of space/time was around in Newton's day. Nobody has
produced any facts that might alter his view.
Newton believed that time was independent of space and that there was no
transformation that affected spatial coordinates that would also affect
time coordinates. There is ample information that this belief is untrue.
There is no such information...except in the minds of desperately deluded dingleberries.
There are those that live on a river in Egypt.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-25 00:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Well the idea of space/time was around in Newton's day. Nobody has
produced any facts that might alter his view.
Newton believed that time was independent of space and that there was no
transformation that affected spatial coordinates that would also affect
time coordinates. There is ample information that this belief is untrue.
There is no such information...
Says the lying Ralphie-boy fool.
Post by HGW
except in the minds of desperately deluded dingleberries.
HGW
Too bad that YOU are the delusional dinglefairy.

And your variable star baloney is just more of your delusional bull plop.

And you have no diploma except from your outhouse, because you used it for
the only thing that made sense.
HGW
2018-02-25 22:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
except in the minds of desperately deluded dingleberries.
HGW
Too bad that YOU are the delusional dinglefairy.
And your variable star baloney is just more of your delusional bull plop.
And you have no diploma except from your outhouse, because you used it for
the only thing that made sense.
poor widdle gawy....checks under his bed for aetheists every night.

Did you know, gawy, scientists regard all religious people as hopeless mental cases.
--
HGW
Gary Harnagel
2018-02-25 22:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Gary Harnagel
Post by HGW
except in the minds of desperately deluded dingleberries.
HGW
Too bad that YOU are the delusional dinglefairy.
And your variable star baloney is just more of your delusional bull plop.
And you have no diploma except from your outhouse, because you used it for
the only thing that made sense.
poor widdle gawy....checks under his bed for aetheists every night.
I don't have to because there are NO real atheists - only delusional minds
full of arrogance.
Post by HGW
Did you know, gawy, scientists regard all religious people as hopeless mental cases.
--
HGW
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

"According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some
form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they
believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."

Got any more lies up your colon?

HGW
2018-02-22 21:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
there is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that light speed is always c.
Are you trying to beat Paul Andersen at circular logic?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
HGW
HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-22 22:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
there is no “coming to” needed. That’s because light’s motion has nothing
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
to do with the speed of the source.
I see! So you are saying its motion has something to do with something else.
What is that 'something else', Bodkin?
The structure of spacetime!
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.

The discovery of how nature works is inductive. It is not an exercise of
axiom + deductive development.
Post by HGW
Are you trying to beat Paul Andersen at circular logic?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
HGW
HGW
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2018-02-23 21:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Post by Odd Bodkin
The discovery of how nature works is inductive. It is not an exercise of
axiom + deductive development.
Your Einsteinian version of nature has never been shown to be true.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Are you trying to beat Paul Andersen at circular logic?
HGW
HGW
--
HGW
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-23 23:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
There is no evidence that is counter to the claim that light speed is
always equal to c.
You have a claim that you can point to evidence that is consistent with
light speed being not always equal to c. This is not the same as that
evidence being inconsistent with light speed being c.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
The discovery of how nature works is inductive. It is not an exercise of
axiom + deductive development.
Your Einsteinian version of nature has never been shown to be true.
The evidence is so far consistent with it being true. There is no proof of
it being true, nor is there any need to do that.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Are you trying to beat Paul Andersen at circular logic?
HGW
HGW
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-24 06:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
There is no evidence that is counter to the claim that light speed is
always equal to c.
And there is no evidence that you're not a camel.
Notice, however, that even your idiot guru couldn't hold
such an idiocy for long, so his GR shit rejects it.
HGW
2018-02-24 22:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
There is no evidence that is counter to the claim that light speed is
always equal to c.
Yes there is! Variable star curves can be consistently simulated by assuming c+v....and such experiments are the ONLY
ones that can be believable.
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have a claim that you can point to evidence that is consistent with
light speed being not always equal to c.
Correct.

This is not the same as that evidence being inconsistent with light speed being c.

What is that supposed to prove? That Bodkin can manipulate words in funny ways?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
The discovery of how nature works is inductive. It is not an exercise of
axiom + deductive development.
Your Einsteinian version of nature has never been shown to be true.
The evidence is so far consistent with it being true. There is no proof of
it being true, nor is there any need to do that.
There is no evidence that OWLS is always c. Nobody has ever measured it properly, using a moving source. End of story!
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-24 23:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
But Bodkin, the structure of 'spacetime' is based on the assumption that
light speed is always c.
No. The structure of spacetime is what it is. A consequence of that fact is
that light speed is always c.
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's
'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
There is no evidence that is counter to the claim that light speed is
always equal to c.
Yes there is! Variable star curves can be consistently simulated by
assuming c+v....and such experiments are the ONLY
ones that can be believable.
Propaganda counts for nothing.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
You have a claim that you can point to evidence that is consistent with
light speed being not always equal to c.
Correct.
This is not the same as that evidence being inconsistent with light speed being c.
What is that supposed to prove? That Bodkin can manipulate words in funny ways?
It means exactly what I said. You have some data that is consistent with
two models that disagree with each other. This is not only possible but
happens all the time. The MMX is compatible with both relativity and
ballistic theory, for example. In such cases, that experimental result is
useless for distinguishing between those particular theories, and other
data needs to be consulted. Same for your variable star data. It’s useless
for distinguishing between relativity and ballistic theory because it’s
compatible with both.
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by HGW
Post by Odd Bodkin
The discovery of how nature works is inductive. It is not an exercise of
axiom + deductive development.
Your Einsteinian version of nature has never been shown to be true.
The evidence is so far consistent with it being true. There is no proof of
it being true, nor is there any need to do that.
There is no evidence that OWLS is always c. Nobody has ever measured it
properly, using a moving source. End of story!
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-24 03:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Just like your diploma, eh? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
Michael Moroney
2018-02-24 03:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Just like your diploma, eh? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
You mean the diploma that was both lost in a move and was destroyed by a
fire?
p***@gmail.com
2018-02-24 03:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by HGW
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Just like your diploma, eh? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
You mean the diploma that was both lost in a move and was destroyed by a
fire?
Yes, that's the one!
HGW
2018-02-24 22:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by HGW
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Just like your diploma, eh? Henry George Wilson.
You mean the diploma that was both lost in a move and was destroyed by a
fire?
If you strike a match in your stinking country shithouse it would probably blow up!
--
HGW
Michael Moroney
2018-02-25 04:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by HGW
...and since light speed is NOT always equal to c, Enstein's 'spacetime' is entirely bogus.
Just like your diploma, eh? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
You mean the diploma that was both lost in a move and was destroyed by a
fire?
If you strike a match in your stinking country shithouse it would probably blow up!
So that's what happened to your diploma, Ralph? You used it to wipe
yourself in your country shithouse, and you lit your farts and that's
how it was destroyed by fire, Ralph? And because you were living in the
basement apartment of said shithouse that you blew up, that's why you
had to move, Ralph? Now it all makes sense how you could have both lost
your diploma in a move and had it destroyed by fire! Sorry to have
doubted you, Mr. Rabbidge!
Michael Moroney
2018-02-21 00:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving
sources to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
Ralph, if you are asking that particular question, then you quite simply
don't understand SR at all, and you are in no position to claim that SR is
wrong or that SR uses aether in any way.
m***@gmail.com
2018-02-21 00:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving
sources to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
Ralph, if you are asking that particular question, then you quite simply
don't understand SR at all, and you are in no position to claim that SR is
wrong or that SR uses aether in any way.
Einstein said a possible no to the aether in 1905.
He is also the one that brought it back in the 1920's.

Mitchell Raemsch
HGW
2018-02-21 22:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Post by Koobee Wublee
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving
sources to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
Ralph, if you are asking that particular question, then you quite simply
don't understand SR at all, and you are in no position to claim that SR is
wrong or that SR uses aether in any way.
Einstein said a possible no to the aether in 1905.
He is also the one that brought it back in the 1920's.
Correct!!!! but he idiots who support him wont accept the fact. ...
Post by m***@gmail.com
Mitchell Raemsch
--
HGW
HGW
2018-02-21 23:00:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by JanPB
Although there is a difference between the Lorentz and Larmor’s transforms,
Hence, irrelevant.
What, in your tiny mind, causes all light from differently moving
sources to instantly find a common speed in any particular direction?
Henry, if you are asking that particular question, then you quite simply
don't understand SR at all, and you are in no position to claim that SR is
wrong or that SR uses aether in any way.
Gawd! poor little mickey moron has ventured out of his country shithouse just to remind us that Einstein said himself,
"a universe without an aether is unthinkable...."
--
HGW
Evonne Lamarr
2018-02-20 16:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JanPB
Post by HGW
Post by benj
Post by Bojovnik Háèem
Post by Gary Harnagel
But that's not what the second postulate of SR says,
baloney-breath.
You should go back to your own alternate reality before the laws of
physics here cause you to cease to exist.
You talk like a visiting professor.
Relativity is real, Kooker. Galileo said so.
There is no aether drift. Period.
There is no aether. That means there can be no Einstein's silly SR.
The stupidity of these posts here. Morons beyond words.
You have to learn what Einstein said about his theory and aether.
JanPB
2018-02-13 23:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Spam. By utter cretin, Henry Rabid.
Can you blame them? Students aren't stupid.
What have you been smoking? What students, on what planet? (This is a
rhetorical question.)

--
Jan
Steve BH
2018-02-14 03:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
In your dreams.
benj
2018-02-14 06:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve BH
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
In your dreams.
In Lib-science dreams the speed of light depends upon the velocity of
it's source. Lib-science unlike real science need not have any basis in
reality.
Michael Moroney
2018-02-14 05:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of
Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever
expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has
followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, did you find a way to refine the venom of one of
the super venomous spiders you guys got there to get yourself really,
really stoned? What you wrote is really, really stupid, even for you,
Ralph.

There is no revolt by students against the truth of science. Besides, what
science student wants to be 100+ years behind upon graduation?
John Gogo
2018-02-20 02:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Einstein's theories are unmechanical and unuseful.
Python
2018-02-20 03:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Gogo
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Einstein's theories are unmechanical and unuseful.
John Gogo's rant is meaningless and idiot.
m***@wp.pl
2018-02-20 05:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Python
Post by John Gogo
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
--
HGW
Einstein's theories are unmechanical and unuseful.
John Gogo's rant is meaningless and idiot.
Python is a brainwashed fanatic following an
insane ideology.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
2018-02-20 05:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(((((1.50121745e+23 (joules^(-1)) * kelvin) * Boltzmann constant)^4) / 6.52472107327) / (2^(3 / 2)))^(1 / 4) = 0.999999999
Paul B. Andersen
2018-02-23 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of
Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately removed from all courses. As
one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job
after graduating when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load
of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge used to be a crank with a crackpot theory.
Now he has evolved into a troll, writing what he knows
is nonsense in order to provoke.

He is more successful as a troll than a crank, though.

But no point in discussing with trolls!

PLONK
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Michael Moroney
2018-02-23 16:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of
Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately removed from all courses. As
one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job
after graduating when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load
of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge used to be a crank with a crackpot theory.
Now he has evolved into a troll, writing what he knows
is nonsense in order to provoke.
He is more successful as a troll than a crank, though.
But no point in discussing with trolls!
PLONK
Of course another possibility is that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge is totally
delusional, schizophrenic perhaps. Ralph is seeing things that are not
there, and it is the voices in Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge's head that are
telling Ralph that there are riots on university campuses protesting
against relativity, when in fact the only protests are against the latest
hike in the price of beer.
Odd Bodkin
2018-02-23 16:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of
Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately removed from all courses. As
one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job
after graduating when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load
of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge used to be a crank with a crackpot theory.
Now he has evolved into a troll, writing what he knows
is nonsense in order to provoke.
He is more successful as a troll than a crank, though.
But no point in discussing with trolls!
PLONK
Of course another possibility is that Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge is totally
delusional, schizophrenic perhaps. Ralph is seeing things that are not
there, and it is the voices in Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge's head that are
telling Ralph that there are riots on university campuses protesting
against relativity, when in fact the only protests are against the latest
hike in the price of beer.
There are others here that are both trolls and also decidedly off in the
head. Koobee and Wozniak and Mitch are examples.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HGW
2018-02-23 21:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Henry George Wilson used to be a crank with a crackpot theory.
Now he has evolved into a troll, writing what he knows
is nonsense in order to provoke.
He is more successful as a troll than a crank, though.
Maybe I know what the future holds and was quoting future headlines.
But no point in discussing with trolls!
PLONK
--
HGW
Michael Moroney
2018-02-24 03:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by HGW
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by HGW
Science students worldwide are vigorously demanding that the teaching of Einstein's ridiculous theory be immediately
removed from all courses. As one representative put it, "how can we ever expect to get a decent job after graduating
when we are being brainwashed into accepting the load of crap that has followed Einstein's great joke of 1905?".
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge used to be a crank with a crackpot theory.
Now he has evolved into a troll, writing what he knows
is nonsense in order to provoke.
He is more successful as a troll than a crank, though.
Maybe I know what the future holds and was quoting future headlines.
Or maybe you are simply schizophrenic and are seeing things that are just
not there, Ralph.
Loading...