Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:10
On Jul 1, 6:06 pm, eric gisse wrote:
> whoever wrote:

> > It called the Lorentz Transforms. You apply them when changing from one
> > frame of reference to another .. which is what happens to the travelling
> > twins when they change their direction of motion.
>
> I had previously shown him the math, and his near-exact response was "it is
> stupid".

The math Gisse the college dropout showed then resemble nothing in
applications to the Lorentz transform. If one really understand the
issue of relative simultaneity and thus the Lorentz transform, he
would give it up long ago. <shrug>

Why did you filter out other newsgroups in the reply? Why are you so
scared of posting to other newsgroups?
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:12
On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the
> > Lorentz transform. <shrug>
>
> You mean the one you've been asked to show and of which you have
> failed to produce evidence ?

Wrong again. Read my lips. I said

"You are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz
transform."

<shrug>

Try again.
From: Koobee Wublee on 2 Jul 2010 01:14
On Jul 1, 2:01 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:42 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > It is no error. Langevin was the first to notice this twins’
> > paradox. However, he cranked himself by proposing nonsense to resolve
> > this paradox.
>
> What nonsense, do you think? ;-)

The nonsense of erroneously applying the Lorentz transform. What
else?
From: artful on 2 Jul 2010 01:15
On Jul 2, 3:12 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:24 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 10:16 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Well, you are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the
> > > Lorentz transform.  <shrug>
>
> > You mean the one you've been asked to show and of which you have
> > failed to produce evidence ?
>
> Wrong again.

Yes you are

>  Read my lips.  I said
>
> "You are unable to see the fallacy in the mathematics of the Lorentz
> transform."

Of course I cannot see what isn't there. There is no fallacy .. You
have never shown one.

Try again
From: Surfer on 2 Jul 2010 03:09
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:41:06 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/1/2010 5:03 PM, Surfer wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:14:59 -0700 (PDT), Koobee Wublee
>
><remainder snipped>
>
>Was it really necessary for you to repost that entire pile of drivel?
>
Sorry for the unnecessary post.

As my news reader didn't correctly display some of characters I fixed
them in an edit window in order to read it, but accidently clicked on
"send" instead of "save".



First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Prev: l'ns t'grs n brs was Re: Furry Zul problems was Re: Furry was Re:Smellavision was Re: Social Norms was Re: CHIPS was Re: Baby Gazoo
Next: Pentcho Valev INVOLUNTARILY MOVES BOWELS