FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
EINSTEIN'S SIN
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4 [54 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Author Message
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
Quote:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's

Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:40 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu...
Quote:
In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

I wouldn't give him credit for being the Top Idiot. He is just a nasty,
obsessive, offensive bigot. Not even good enough to be an idiot.
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In article <H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Quote:
Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Indeed. Unlike most sporting events (World Cup/Olympics etc) this is
one event that just keeps on delivering ;-)

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In article <2a6dnbyZZb5dICvZRVnygg@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> writes:
Quote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

I wouldn't give him credit for being the Top Idiot. He is just a nasty,
obsessive, offensive bigot. Not even good enough to be an idiot.

What's worse, his entertainment value is quite low.


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In article <130720062245162280%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
Quote:
In article <H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

Indeed. Unlike most sporting events (World Cup/Olympics etc) this is
one event that just keeps on delivering ;-)

Well, freak shows were popular since antiquity, so there is a

distinguished tradition behind this event.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:diztg.33$45.1627@news.uchicago.edu...
Quote:
In article <2a6dnbyZZb5dICvZRVnygg@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are
just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

I wouldn't give him credit for being the Top Idiot. He is just a nasty,
obsessive, offensive bigot. Not even good enough to be an idiot.

What's worse, his entertainment value is quite low.

Sadly true. He is (in all his forms) one of the few people I have kill
filed.

It was entertaining reading his Wikirant and comparing that with his actual
behaviour - for example, he obviously knows lots of people have kill filed
him so he changes his identity here slightly on a regular basis - yet claims
to not care if people kill file him...

A definite cranktrait.
Back to top
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:44 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Quote:
2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative
speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time
dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the
falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be
obvious.

You are right, the speed of light is always measured to be c.

PC
Back to top
Peter Christensen
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 130

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should
| > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting
| > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
| > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.
|
|
| Mind your manners, Androcles.

f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality.
Androcles.

Concerning mental level, try to look at your own postings mr. Sorcerer.
You would find a very special low level...

I really won't argue about it, because I'm not here in
sci.physics.relativity just to argue with morons...

PC
Back to top
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu
science forum Guru


Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 434

PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In article <ndidnebZBKxfVCvZRVny1g@pipex.net>, "T Wake" <Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> writes:
Quote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:diztg.33$45.1627@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <2a6dnbyZZb5dICvZRVnygg@pipex.net>, "T Wake"
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:H1ztg.32$45.1783@news.uchicago.edu...
In article <130720062153376336%phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> writes:
In article <8MadnTxYqPtVFivZRVnysw@pipex.net>, T Wake
Usenet.es7AT@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Seriously, we [tinw] are all agreed that the likes of [Hammond] are
just
insane, but Androcles takes it to a new level.

I plonked him ages ago. There's idiots, then there's bigoted idiots,
then there's Androcles - on a level of stupidity unparalled.

Well, that's a big claim. The competition for the title of Usenet's
Top Idiot is intense, with lots of prime candidates in the running.
True, androcles may appear in the lead right now, but that's partly
because some of his top competitors appear to be taking a break. The
race is far from over.

I wouldn't give him credit for being the Top Idiot. He is just a nasty,
obsessive, offensive bigot. Not even good enough to be an idiot.

What's worse, his entertainment value is quite low.

Sadly true. He is (in all his forms) one of the few people I have kill
filed.

It was entertaining reading his Wikirant and comparing that with his actual
behaviour - for example, he obviously knows lots of people have kill filed
him so he changes his identity here slightly on a regular basis - yet claims
to not care if people kill file him...

A definite cranktrait.

Yes, most certainly so.


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152831221.892068.197180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I
should
| > | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit
wasting
| > | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
| > | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.
| > | >
| > |
| > | Mind your manners, Androcles.
| >
| > f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality.
| > Androcles.
|
| Concerning mental level, try to look at your own postings mr. Sorcerer.
| You would find a very special low level...
|
| I really won't argue about it, because I'm not here in
| sci.physics.relativity just to argue with morons...
|
| PC
If you don't wish to argue, only pontificate, then you can f*** off, too,
you ignorant cunt.
Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152830655.200913.19100@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| You are right, the speed of light is always measured to be c. (+/- 3.6
fps relative to the source.)

http://oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm


Androcles.
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:55 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

In <yHOtg.315716$8W1.305307@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, sent to sci.physics
on Friday 14 July 2006 16:25, Sorcerer (Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a) had
a brainstorm and wrote:

Quote:

"Peter Christensen" <PeCh@MailAPS.org> wrote in message
news:1152831221.892068.197180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152812878.123340.145770@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I
should
| > | > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit
wasting
| > | > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
| > | > And don't snip, Google has plenty of bytes available.
| > |
| > |
| > | Mind your manners, Androcles.
|
| > f*** off, cunt. Go talk to Hammond, he's more your mentality.
| > Androcles.
|
| Concerning mental level, try to look at your own postings mr. Sorcerer.
| You would find a very special low level...
|
| I really won't argue about it, because I'm not here in
| sci.physics.relativity just to argue with morons...
|
| PC
If you don't wish to argue, only pontificate, then you can f*** off, too,
you ignorant cunt.
Androcles.

Androcles shows his sharp wit and excellent debating skills. He makes me
proud to be British.

--
T Wake
Usenet.es7 at gishpuppy.com
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
|


You snipped. Why?

It's obvious why.


Quote:
| > |
| > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim .
|
| > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
|
| That's not a theory. It's just a statement.


Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say.
I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the theories.

Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet?

I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should
explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting
my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.

No, you are not very precise in what you say. You presented two
statements, which you claimed came from two different theories, but you
failed to tell us which theories of mathematics they came from. I
pointed that out to you, but you got confused about it. So, what are
those theories? The theory of integers maybe? Or the theory of the real
numbers? Furthermore, I fail to see what relationship your posited
analogy has to Valev's claim that one can decide the better
interpretation of two theories of the same physical content. The reason
these details are important is because (I presume) your were trying to
set up an analogy for some purpose.

But I also don't see the point of your analogy unless the two theories
have the same mathematical content. You could arrange that, say, by
taking the rationals in fractional form and the rationals in decimal
form. But what would that buy you, anyway?

The entire point being that, in relation to the point I made vis-s-vis
Valev's claim, two theories in physics having the same physical (or
empirical) content but employing different ontologies and different
causalities have by definition different "interpretations," but the
"correct" interpretation between them cannot be decided on the basis of
experiment because it is experiment that they already must agree on to
be called "theories of the same physical content" in the first place,
since both theories are either aided or harmed by the outcome of every
relevant experiment made on them.

OK, I'll just say it: It is obviously impossible to use experiment to
decide the better of two different (i.e., have different
interpretations) but physically equivalent theories on the basis of
experiment. Valev was wrong in his assumption. If one is to make such a
preference between two or more such interpretations, one should be
honest to admit that that choice is completely arbitrary from the
empirical viewpoint. That's my point.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152805783.031103.80940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1152725008.002112.247640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > |
| >
| >
| > You snipped. Why?
|
| It's obvious why.
|
Is it? You snipped Pentcho's words and you didn't change the title.
What it obvious is that you lost your argument. Snipping is a sure
indication of bigotry.




|
| > | > |
| > | > | Your reply makes me think that you disagree with Valev's claim .
| > | >
| > | > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
| > |
| > | That's not a theory. It's just a statement.
| >
| >
| > Grrr.... Learn to read, I am very precise in what I say.
| > I have two competing theories. In one of them, theory A, 2+2 = 4.
| > I did not say that was a theory, I said 2+2 = 4 *IN* one of the
theories.
| >
| > Theory A is a theory. Do we understand yet?
| >
| > I'll stop there and allow you to reconsider, I don't see why I should
| > explain everything I say to someone that cannot read, so quit wasting
| > my time. Respond to yesterday's post AFTER you've read it.
|
| No, you are not very precise in what you say. You presented two
| statements, which you claimed came from two different theories, but you
| failed to tell us which theories of mathematics they came from.

I don't need to, it isn't necessary to the discussion of Pentcho's words
that you snipped. I don't have to describe a car down to every last nut and
bolt for you to know what a car is, and I don't have to tell you what a
theory
is.
Theory A is a theory, you argumentative troll. Mathematics has theorems,
not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
do some homework for yourself. Theorems are proven by the mathematician
to whom they belong to the satisfaction of all mathematicians who can debate
truthfully and logically. Here are three theorems from Googling.
Fermat's Last Theorem It is worth noting that at this stage it remained to
prove Fermat's Last Theorem for odd primes n only. For if there were
integers x, y, z with xn + yn = zn ...
www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
history/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages


The four colour theorem The Four Colour Theorem returned to being the Four
Colour Conjecture in 1890. Percy John Heawood, a lecturer at Durham England,
published a paper called Map ...
www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/
HistTopics/The_four_colour_theorem.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages


Pythagorean Theorem Pythagoras' Theorem. 64 proofs of the Pythagorean
theorem.
www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml - 121k - 12 Jul 2006 -
Cached - Similar pages



Einstein's theory of relativity is a mishmash of persuasive rhetoric
with inconsistencies, not a theorem at all, his definition of c
is 2AB/(t'A-tA), thus light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA in
relativity.
That is fucking drivel. No physicist, let alone mathematician, would utter
such a ridiculous definition or put his name to it.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img7.gif

Einstein was a fucking LIAR and Pentcho is justified in castigating him
publicly, along with his shithead disciples.

| I
| pointed that out to you, but you got confused about it.

You snipped, you cunt.


| So, what are
| those theories? The theory of integers maybe? Or the theory of the real
| numbers? Furthermore, I fail to see

That's your problem. Your tiny mind cannot chew gum and cross the road
at the same time, you'd fail to see the truck bearing down on you.


| what relationship your posited
| analogy has to Valev's claim that one can decide the better
| interpretation of two theories of the same physical content. The reason
| these details are important is because (I presume) your were trying to
| set up an analogy for some purpose.


You can presume all you want, boy. Mathematicians do not presume.

|
| But I also don't see

That's right. You don't see, so you blindly go around leading the blind,
hoping they are as stupid as you. All this argument is about me setting
up an analogy to teach you, but you don't want to see, you'd rather waste
time on trivialities. That's what trolls do.
It's not fault you have your head up your arse and can only see your own
s**t, I'm trying to pull it out for you.
My turn to snip.
[snip what you don't see and fail to see] (unread).
Androcles.
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: EINSTEIN'S SIN Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152893632.575024.35560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message

... Mathematics has theorems,
not theories. Perhaps I should explain that to you, but I expect you
do some homework for yourself.

Then what about group theory, matrix theory, ring theory, field theory,
or the theory of complex and real numbers? So, yeah, go right ahead and
explain it to us.

Quote:
Einstein was a fucking LIAR and Pentcho is justified in castigating him
publicly, along with his shithead disciples.

Except 1) Valev missed the mark this time. Experiment cannot
distinguish between the interpretations of empirically equivalent
theories. And 2) this is a relativity NG, not an Einstein NG. This NG
is not for ad hominem arguments.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4 [54 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:58 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0757s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0368s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]