Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 10:05 On Jan 4, 9:53 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 ene, 11:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 4, 9:27 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Geometric relationships are not nature. > > Geometry and math are tools to explain to fools like you what is > happening in nature. > > Miguel Rios What you need to do is to perform the geometry and math based upon both Observers determining the simultaneity of the lightning strikes based upon the light propagating with respect to the medium. If you were capable of doing this, both Observers would conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous as I have demonstrated. It is not the geometry or math that is incorrect, it is you misunderstanding of nature which leads you to use frames of reference when determining the simultaneity of the lightning strikes which is incorrect. You need to understand the light propagates with respect to the medium.
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 10:58 On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > behavior. > > Sulk if you like. > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where you are just defining words the way you want to?
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 11:05 On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes.. > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > behavior. > > > Sulk if you like. > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > you are just defining words the way you want to? I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. Until then, your behavior is the definition of denial.
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 11:10 On Jan 4, 8:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Miguel Rios > > Geometric relationships are not nature. Really? Who says? Did you think Euclid wasn't looking at nature?
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 11:12
On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > behavior. > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. Have you tried scholar.google.com? Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that anything else is denial? > > Until then, your behavior is the definition of denial. |