Galilean transformation equations
in [Relativity]
|
From: rbwinn on 14 Jul 2010 22:10 On Jul 6, 7:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 5, 9:13 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 3, 6:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > >news:c34cba53-2a43-453f-936b-7088df7d2bef(a)j7g2000prj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:01 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "rbwinn" wrote in message > > > > > > >news:7a91960b-b849-4b8f-b358-0aceb2d1b712(a)i9g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > >On Jun 28, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> It sounds like perhaps you are proposing something similar to LET > > > > > > > >> In LET, reality isGalilean. Space doesn't contract and time doesn't > > > > > > >> slow > > > > > > >> down. TheGalileantransforms apply. > > > > > > > >> However, in that simple 3D galillean universe, what happens is clocks > > > > > > >> (and > > > > > > >> all processes) run slower and rulers (and all matter and fields) > > > > > > >> contract > > > > > > >> due to absolute motion. > > > > > > > >> They do so in such a way that the MEASUREMENTS made with such clocks > > > > > > >> and > > > > > > >> rulers are no longer related byGalileantransforms, but by Lorentz > > > > > > >> transforms. > > > > > > > >> It seems you are proposing the instead, we just have clock running slow > > > > > > >> so > > > > > > >> that the relation ship between what we MEASURE clocks (and processes) > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> do > > > > > > >> is related by > > > > > > > >> x'=x-vt > > > > > > >> y'=y > > > > > > >> z'=z > > > > > > >> t'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > > >> Only you are using n for the measured time, there is no need for that. > > > > > > >> If > > > > > > >> you are talking about what is measured, you can just use x,y,z,t. > > > > > > > >Those equations do not work. > > > > > > > I know your equations are wrong. Glad to hear you admit it > > > > > > > > They require a different reference for > > > > > > > time in S' than in S. TheGalileantransformation equations require > > > > > > > t' to equal t. > > > > > > > And so your equation using t(1-v/c) for time in S' is wrong. > > > > > > >> So .. given that the definition of a correct clock is one that shows the > > > > > >> time in the frame in which it is at rest .... what is the formula for the > > > > > >> time shown on a correct clock at rest in S' as observed by an observer at > > > > > >> rest in frame S ?? > > > > > > >> Can you answer that honestly? I doubt it. Prove me wrong.. > > > > > > >The clock in S' is ticking slower than the clock in S as observed from > > > > > >either frame of reference. A clock at rest in S' is moving with a > > > > > >velocity of v relative to an observer in S. The time on the clock > > > > > >would be > > > > > > > n'=t(1-v/c) > > > > > > >where t is time on a clock at rest in S. > > > > > > You've still not answered .. just calling it 'S' doesn't say what the frame > > > > > is. Are you at rest in this frame S now? Am I? Is anything? > > > > > > Lets ask again .. see if you can answer this time > > > > > > So in what frame of reference are the clocks ticking at the 'correct' > > > > > rate, and not slowed by motion? What is the relationship between the > > > > > time shown on some clock moving in that frame, and the actual time in > > > > > that frame? > > > > > > And a further question > > > > > > If you have two frames moving relative to each other, and each with a clock > > > > > at rest in them .. which clock runs slow and which runs fast? And why will > > > > > they do that .. why don't the people at rest in those frames simply set the > > > > > clocks to the correct rate .. why do they let their clocks run slow or fast? > > > > > There are reasons why things happen, including motion. Now, I know > > > > you scientists are all impressed by having a train stand still and the > > > > railroad track moving. The problem with it is that it is not > > > > reality. The train is still what is moving. > > > > The Earth is not moving, Robert? Then why do the locations of the > > > other planets move in the night sky? > > > The earth is moving relative to the sun, PD. > > Yes, it is. And so you see, the railroad tracks, which are connected > to the moving earth, are also moving. Don't you think so too? So what? S represents the railroad track, and S' represents the train. A clock on the train is slower than a clock on the ground by the railroad track. So all we have to do is put a clock on the ground by the railroad track. What is supposed to be so difficult about that?
From: YBM on 15 Jul 2010 00:01 rbwinn a �crit : > On Jul 14, 7:08 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> Inertial a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> "rbwinn" wrote in message >>> news:3f7f0218-66b3-4d14-b4e6-f01c82f796ba(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>>> "rbwinn" wrote in message >>>>> news:e9c001fb-d6a6-427f-8555-a51ca935d1eb(a)k14g2000pro.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Jul 7, 5:18 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 10:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> [snip] >>>>>>>> t is time on a clock in S. t'=t t' is time on a clock in S >>>>> also, >> > by >>>>>>>> definition. A clock in S' is running slower. There is no clock >>>>> in >> > S' >>>>>>>> that shows t'. >>>>>>> SoGalileantransforms do not apply to any sorts of clocks .. ie to >>>>>>> all processes. Absolutely moving clocks (and processes) run slow >>>>>>> according to your theory. >>>>>>> Correct? >>>>>> Incorrect. >>>>> Then make up your mind >>>>>> Processes at atomic and sub-atomic level are what slow >>>>>> down. >>>>> So all clocks and processes run slow .. and soGalileantransforms do not >>>>> apply to what such clocks and processes show (ie to the readings on >>>>> clocks) >>>>> Thanks for agreeing with what you jsut said was incorrect >>>>>> That is why all clocks in a moving system will show less time >>>>>> than a clock at rest. >>>>> So you are saying thatGalileantransforms do not apply to what moving >>>>> clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). >>>> TheGalileantransformation equations predict that a clock in S' will >>>> be slower than a clock in S. >>> No .. they do not. >>>> x'=x-vt >>>> y'=y >>>> z'=z >>>> t'=t >>> That's theGalileantransforms above. .They say nothing about what some >>> clock would read. Except that a correct clock will show the same time >>> in both frames >>>> n'=t(1-v/c) >>> That is not part of thegalileantransforms. That is your additional >>> equation for clock slowing. Lets call it (for want of a better name) >>> the 'rbwinn clock slowing equation'. >>>> t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. >>> So you are saying thatGalileantransforms (in particular t' = t) do not >>> apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). You >>> are saying a moving clock obeys n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) where n=t is >>> what a clock in S would read, and n' is what a clock in S' would read. >> Right, that is what Robert says even if he is too dishonest to admit it. >> >> Moreover you could check that this formula for n' is not compatible with >> the invariance of light speed (just look at a light ray with an >> equation of motion such as x=-ct in S). > > If the light has a negative velocity in S, it has a negative velocity > in S'. Not true, as you could check by yourself. Anyway, the point is not that it is negative, the point is that its magnitude is c in S, and not in S' ACCORDING YOU YOUR OWN FORMULA.
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2010 07:31 On Jul 14, 9:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > rbwinn a écrit : > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 7:08 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> Inertial a écrit : > > >>> "rbwinn" wrote in message > >>>news:3f7f0218-66b3-4d14-b4e6-f01c82f796ba(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > >>>> On Jul 11, 10:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>>>> "rbwinn" wrote in message > >>>>>news:e9c001fb-d6a6-427f-8555-a51ca935d1eb(a)k14g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>> On Jul 7, 5:18 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 10:08 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> [snip] > >>>>>>>> t is time on a clock in S. t'=t t' is time on a clock in S > >>>>> also, >> > by > >>>>>>>> definition. A clock in S' is running slower. There is no clock > >>>>> in >> > S' > >>>>>>>> that shows t'. > >>>>>>> SoGalileantransforms do not apply to any sorts of clocks .. ie to > >>>>>>> all processes. Absolutely moving clocks (and processes) run slow > >>>>>>> according to your theory. > >>>>>>> Correct? > >>>>>> Incorrect. > >>>>> Then make up your mind > >>>>>> Processes at atomic and sub-atomic level are what slow > >>>>>> down. > >>>>> So all clocks and processes run slow .. and soGalileantransforms do not > >>>>> apply to what such clocks and processes show (ie to the readings on > >>>>> clocks) > >>>>> Thanks for agreeing with what you jsut said was incorrect > >>>>>> That is why all clocks in a moving system will show less time > >>>>>> than a clock at rest. > >>>>> So you are saying thatGalileantransforms do not apply to what moving > >>>>> clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). > >>>> TheGalileantransformation equations predict that a clock in S' will > >>>> be slower than a clock in S. > >>> No .. they do not. > >>>> x'=x-vt > >>>> y'=y > >>>> z'=z > >>>> t'=t > >>> That's theGalileantransforms above. .They say nothing about what some > >>> clock would read. Except that a correct clock will show the same time > >>> in both frames > >>>> n'=t(1-v/c) > >>> That is not part of thegalileantransforms. That is your additional > >>> equation for clock slowing. Lets call it (for want of a better name) > >>> the 'rbwinn clock slowing equation'. > >>>> t is time on a clock in S. n' is time on a clock in S'. > >>> So you are saying thatGalileantransforms (in particular t' = t) do not > >>> apply to what moving clocks show (ie to the readings on clocks). You > >>> are saying a moving clock obeys n' = t(1-v/c) = n(1-v/c) where n=t is > >>> what a clock in S would read, and n' is what a clock in S' would read.. > >> Right, that is what Robert says even if he is too dishonest to admit it. > > >> Moreover you could check that this formula for n' is not compatible with > >> the invariance of light speed (just look at a light ray with an > >> equation of motion such as x=-ct in S). > > > If the light has a negative velocity in S, it has a negative velocity > > in S'. > > Not true, as you could check by yourself. > > Anyway, the point is not that it is negative, the point is that its > magnitude is c in S, and not in S' ACCORDING YOU YOUR OWN FORMULA. Well, what you are trying to do is transform coordinates with n'. n' is not a coordinate. It is time on a slower clock. In the Galilean transformation equations, you transform coordinates with the equation t'=t. You need to convert n' to t' before you transform coordinates.
From: rbwinn on 15 Jul 2010 07:37 On Jul 14, 7:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 4:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 6:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 11:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 5, 4:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:51 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, cully when <cullyw...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eric gisse wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Well, the Lorentz equations give the times of the Lorentz equations, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and the length contraction moves things where the times of the Lorentz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> equations say they would be. That does not prove anything to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> except that the Lorentz equation times are too great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Do you demand Intel explain to you how the semiconductor technology of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> their integrated circuits work? When they don't, do you sniff about how > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> you are unconvinced because 'that does not prove anything to me' on a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> newsgroup for 15 years? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Or is it just about relativity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It is just about relativity. I use the equations scientists threw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> away in 1887. You are very offended by that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm no more 'offended' at you being stupid than I am 'offended' at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people around here who put up the 'obama = hitler' signs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ridiculous stupidity that makes noise but accomplishes nothing does not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offend me. That you've been doing this for 15 years and have convinced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > literally _not one person_ that you are right is evidence enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't know. I have actually met stupid people and there are times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done rather stupid things. Bobby has convince me he would have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to climb several rungs of the ladder to reach the stupid level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert isn't stupid, but he is a tad sociopathic, possibly a bit - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pathic in other areas, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has a certain quiet tone that comes across even through typing. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine him saying things like, "Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > screaming?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, PD, show the conviction of your accusations.. Go to a magistrate > > > > > > > > > > > > > where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a > > > > > > > > > > > > > person believed to be insane. Otherwise, you are just another person > > > > > > > > > > > > > who multiplies words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Tell me where you live, so that I can file with the authorities > > > > > > > > > > > > that have you in their jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > Glad to be of help, since you've asked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere in the Phoenix area, Robert? I'm thinking Maricopa? > > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever walked across the fields in your back yard when you've > > > > > > > > > > > seen the authorities coming, or do you just hide under the trailer? > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > There is one group of people I enjoy talking with more than > > > > > > > > > > scientists. That is lawyers. > > > > > > > > > > And do you walk across the field when you see lawyers coming, or do > > > > > > > > > you just hide under your trailer when you see lawyers coming? > > > > > > > > > What happens when the authorities and lawyers come at the same time? > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of lawyers who go to church where I do. Do they > > > > > > > > count? > > > > > > > > Actually, I'm more curious what happens when authorities come to where > > > > > > > you live. > > > > > > > Since you go to church, it's obvious that you can get to the library > > > > > > > in Maricopa. There's actually a very good university in Phoenix, too. > > > > > > > So you really don't have a good excuse not to go there to get some > > > > > > > answers you keep asking for here. > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > So you are saying that scientists here are forbidden to speak about > > > > > > relativity with people who do not have college degrees. > > > > > > Not at all. Just because someone doesn't respond to you in the fashion > > > > > you're fishing for doesn't mean they are forbidden by anyone from > > > > > doing so. It must may mean that people don't like to accommodate your > > > > > laziness as a general rule. > > > > > > PD > > > > > Well, I don't see how it means anything for someone who has never > > > > worked a day in their life to tell me that I am lazy. > > > > I don't know who this person is that has told you that you're lazy but > > > has never worked a day in his life. I work six days a week, and I'm > > > telling you you're lazy, too. > > > > PD > > > You work six days a week doing what? > > My job, Robert. > And I'm not a welder. > Nor am I a compulsive liar. > It's probably not a good idea to project your own situation onto > others. > > PD Well, you sound like you are on government welfare of some kind. I don't think you do anything except put out bad information.
From: PD on 15 Jul 2010 14:00
On Jul 15, 6:37 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 7:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 4:17 am, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 6:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 11:52 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 6, 7:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 4:06 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 4, 12:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:27 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 1:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 12:51 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 7:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 3, 9:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 7:45 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 4:56 pm, cully when <cullyw...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eric gisse wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Jul 1, 6:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> rbwinn wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Well, the Lorentz equations give the times of the Lorentz equations, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> and the length contraction moves things where the times of the Lorentz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> equations say they would be. That does not prove anything to me > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> except that the Lorentz equation times are too great. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Do you demand Intel explain to you how the semiconductor technology of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> their integrated circuits work? When they don't, do you sniff about how > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> you are unconvinced because 'that does not prove anything to me' on a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> newsgroup for 15 years? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Or is it just about relativity? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It is just about relativity. I use the equations scientists threw > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> away in 1887. You are very offended by that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm no more 'offended' at you being stupid than I am 'offended' at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people around here who put up the 'obama = hitler' signs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ridiculous stupidity that makes noise but accomplishes nothing does not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > offend me. That you've been doing this for 15 years and have convinced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > literally _not one person_ that you are right is evidence enough. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I don't know. I have actually met stupid people and there are times > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have done rather stupid things. Bobby has convince me he would have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to climb several rungs of the ladder to reach the stupid level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert isn't stupid, but he is a tad sociopathic, possibly a bit - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pathic in other areas, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He has a certain quiet tone that comes across even through typing. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imagine him saying things like, "Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > screaming?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, PD, show the conviction of your accusations. Go to a magistrate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where you live and file a petition for the institutionalization of a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > person believed to be insane. Otherwise, you are just another person > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who multiplies words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Tell me where you live, so that I can file with the authorities > > > > > > > > > > > > > that have you in their jurisdiction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glad to be of help, since you've asked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > Somewhere in the Phoenix area, Robert? I'm thinking Maricopa? > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever walked across the fields in your back yard when you've > > > > > > > > > > > > seen the authorities coming, or do you just hide under the trailer? > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one group of people I enjoy talking with more than > > > > > > > > > > > scientists. That is lawyers. > > > > > > > > > > > And do you walk across the field when you see lawyers coming, or do > > > > > > > > > > you just hide under your trailer when you see lawyers coming? > > > > > > > > > > What happens when the authorities and lawyers come at the same time? > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple of lawyers who go to church where I do.. Do they > > > > > > > > > count? > > > > > > > > > Actually, I'm more curious what happens when authorities come to where > > > > > > > > you live. > > > > > > > > Since you go to church, it's obvious that you can get to the library > > > > > > > > in Maricopa. There's actually a very good university in Phoenix, too. > > > > > > > > So you really don't have a good excuse not to go there to get some > > > > > > > > answers you keep asking for here. > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > So you are saying that scientists here are forbidden to speak about > > > > > > > relativity with people who do not have college degrees. > > > > > > > Not at all. Just because someone doesn't respond to you in the fashion > > > > > > you're fishing for doesn't mean they are forbidden by anyone from > > > > > > doing so. It must may mean that people don't like to accommodate your > > > > > > laziness as a general rule. > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > Well, I don't see how it means anything for someone who has never > > > > > worked a day in their life to tell me that I am lazy. > > > > > I don't know who this person is that has told you that you're lazy but > > > > has never worked a day in his life. I work six days a week, and I'm > > > > telling you you're lazy, too. > > > > > PD > > > > You work six days a week doing what? > > > My job, Robert. > > And I'm not a welder. > > Nor am I a compulsive liar. > > It's probably not a good idea to project your own situation onto > > others. > > > PD > > Well, you sound like you are on government welfare of some kind. Nope. I'm not supported by any government money, Robert. > I > don't think you do anything except put out bad information. Well, you think all sorts of goofy things, especially without evidence. |