"Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 30 May 2011 00:33:33 +0100, "Androcles"
| wrote:
|
|
| "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Sun, 29 May 2011 23:41:24 +0100, "Androcles"
| | wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | .. .
| | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 11:47:38 +0100, "Androcles"
| | | wrote:
| | |
| | |
| | | "Henry Wilson DSc." ..@.. wrote in message
| | | .. .
| | | | On Sun, 29 May 2011 08:35:02 +0100, "Sky.Watcher"
|
| | | | wrote:
| | |
| | | | claims all moving matter contracts, but I suspect you don't
know
| it
| | | | either.
| | | | -- Sky.Watcher
| | | |
| | | | You're obviously new here. I wont bother to explain..
| | | |
| | | | All right, I won't bother to read your ridiculous nonsense.
You've
| | | obviously
| | | | no idea what you are talking about.
| | | |
| | | | Goodbye.
| | | | -- Sky.Watcher
| | | |
| | | | What's your real motive? You haven't contributed anything
| scientific.
| | You
| | | | aapparently don't know anything about SR...so I can only assume
you
| are
| | | just
| | | | part of the Einstein conspiracy, here to stifle any criticism of
his
| | | stupid
| | | | theory.
| | | |
| | | |
| | | Looks to me like he was asking you a question you couldn't answer.
| | | You've lost that one, Wilson, he isn't bothering with you anymore.
| | | I won't bother to explain.
| | |
| | | He's obviously turned up here one day, read some of your crap and
then
| | | accused me of being wrong.
| | |
| | | I showed you where Einstein clearly stated that moving matter
contracts
| by
| | | 1/gamma in his 1905 paper.
| |
| | You haven't given me one single citation for gamma, and 2 is shorter
than
| 1.
| | I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| | |
| | | I also explained to you that Einstein's theory is nothing more than
a
| | | corruption of LET whereby every individual observer is at rest in
his
| own
| | | personal aether. Hence the maths of LET and SR are identical.
| |
| | According to the dyscalculiac Alf "Daisy" Baggage, 1/2 is identical to
| 2/1.
| | I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid that is.
| |
| | Look it's quite simple really.
| |
| | When Einstein wrote "it becomes shorter in the ratio of 1:
sqrt(...)..."
| | he obviously meant it was initially '1' and 1/gamma when moving.
|
| Look, it's quite simple really.
| When the Greeks wrote their alpha, beta:
| http://www.keyway.ca/gif/greek2.gif
| we English speaking people didn't call it an alphagamm, we
| called it an alphabet.
| Only pet chimps and Einstein Dingleberries talk about gamma,
| Einstein used beta = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
| I won't bother to explain how ****ing stupid you are, but you
| are not only dyslexic, you suffer from dyscalculia also. This
| is a sure indication of very low intelligence, matching little eric
| and Phuckwit Duck.
|
| I only reply to your messages because it provides me with good practice
for
| answering the more accomplished dickheads here.
|
I only reply to your messages for the laugh, Daisy.
I won't bother to explain, your advancing senile dementia
means you cannot appreciate it.
Tell us again how Lorentz's 1/2 is identical to Einstein's 2/1
and gamma means 1/beta where beta = (1-(v/c)^2)^-0.5, since
that has you as thoroughly ****ed as Phuckwit Duck.