|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
[snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug The following sum up the self-styled physicists. ** FAITH IS LOGIC ** LYING IS TEACHING ** DECEIT IS VALIDATION ** NITWIT IS GENIUS ** OCCULT IS SCIENCE ** FICTION IS THEORY ** FUDGING IS DERIVATION ** PARADOX IS KOSHER ** WORSHIP IS STUDY ** BULL**** IS TRUTH ** ARROGANCE IS SAGE ** BELIEVING IS LEARNING ** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE ** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM ** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM ** CONJECTURE IS REALITY ** HANDWAVING IS REASONING ** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY ** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE ** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT ** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS ** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY ** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 10:07 am, Tom Roberts wrote: [snipped SR sermons] At present, there are no experiments that refute SR. [snipped more SR scriptures] But this process won't start until there is some real experiment that is inconsistent with SR. Until then all you have is dreams and hallucinations, which aren't science. Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug Dirk, immortal fumble? -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
I'd have liked to have seen your article on gyros,
re relativity. anyway, "paradoxy" is simply attempts to resolve between "orthodoxy" and "heterodoxy," with the paradoxes of Xeno taken as exemplars relating to the convergence of sums of geometrical series; the real problem is Minkowski's bogus "spactimey" orthodoxy, and all of the lightconeheads up to and beyond Feynman: totally obfusfacatory; simply use quaternionsa, wherein Hamilton's lagnuage of vector mechamics uses the "real, scalar" part to be the time "dimension." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug Dirk, immortal fumble? paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it. Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 03.01.2013 09:57, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 2, 2:14 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: On 02.01.2013 19:38, Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. SIC!!!! Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug Dirk, immortal fumble? paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. Quite. It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific method is way beyond my mental abilities. The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it. Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug Your argument are as lethal as always. For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero at the instant when they were co-located: http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 And you made me aware that I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf had confused parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b And you also proved that even if it is experimentally proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is very much important in determining this aberration. http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
that was funny, although I don't usually link
to stuff, and did not. poor Kooby Doobyy and his tired aetherism. I suppose that he takes Russel's illinguistic paradoxes on faith, anyway -- praise Lawd Berty! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not resist to get his butt kicked again. Let’s spank more of the little professor’s ass. Ahahaha... Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. Quite. It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific method is way beyond my mental abilities. Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the statement below. shrug “Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of these hypotheses.” The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the elephant”. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is. Gee! You can even take hints from children’s story books. Ahahahaha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road, we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway. Ahahahaha... The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it. Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug Your argument are as lethal as always. You bet. shrug For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero at the instant when they were co-located: http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) Where ** B^2 = v^2 / c^2 It can easily be Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of Minkowski spacetime using your labeling system: ** c^2 dt_AC^2 – ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 – ds_BC^2 Where ** ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 The equation can be written as follows. ** dt_AC^2 (1 – B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 – B_BC^2) Where ** B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A ** B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B From A’s point of view trying to compare the rate of time flows with C, B and C are the same. Thus, the equation above simplifies into the following. ** dt_AB^2 (1 – B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 – B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2 Where ** B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A ** B_BB c = 0 On the other hand, from C’s pint of view observing A, B and A are the same. Thus, the spacetime equation has to be interpreted differently as the following. ** dt_AA^2 (1 – B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 – B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2 Where ** B_AA c = 0 ** B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B The only time when there is no paradox is when (B_AB = B_BA = 0). This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all about such that there is no special treatment on the one that is moving, and the little professor from Norway fails miserably on this one. SPANK SPANK SPANK It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick, little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to resolve the paradox --- projection of proper time. Tom used to believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision promoted by promoted by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather, Max Born. shrug And you made me aware that I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf had confused parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt still applies today. “Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to Darwin, myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in the butt for your barbaric attitude. “In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. shrug “Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.” That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing aberration without using the principle of relativity. Why did you replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of 2008? The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor. No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha... [Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped] ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
you are hiding behind a mass of equationary;
all that has to be shown, in modern terms, is that the angular momenta of atoms must be taken onto account for any acceleration toward c, which is the speed -- not the velocity -- of light, actually ne'er achieved, in no perfect vacuum. in any case, the curvature of space was forensically adduced by Erastosthenes, and instrumentally by Gauss (surveying Allsace-Lorraine for the French government). -Hide assholish text - |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On 04.01.2013 00:07, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. shrug Antitheses to SR a ** Voigt transformation ** Larmor’s transformation ** Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. shrug paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. My mathematic trick: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not resist to get his butt kicked again. Let’s spank more of the little professor’s ass. Ahahaha... Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. Quite. It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific method is way beyond my mental abilities. Only to the little professor. Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat the essence of scientific method. There is nothing wrong about the statement below. shrug “Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of these hypotheses.” Quite. That's the Wubleean version all right. shrug The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the elephant”. Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is. Gee! You can even take hints from children’s story books. Ahahahaha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant Please do bookmark this one. So, a few months or years down the road, we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway. Ahahahaha... Quite. I am sure people will laugh at me when you present the Wubleean version of the scientific method. shrug The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? :-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. Why don’t you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? Bookmark it, and save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. Come on, paul. Do it. Oh, still sore, eh? :-) Looking for every possible opportunities to get back at Koobee Wublee? shrug Your argument are as lethal as always. You bet. shrug For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero at the instant when they were co-located: http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) Where ** B^2 = v^2 / c^2 It can easily be Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) I will take you word for that it easily can be that if you don't know what you are doing. shrug [snip irrelevant derivation with the purpose to divert the attention from that fact that Wublee insisted that to set three co-located clocks to zero is a violation of relativity.] And you made me aware that I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf had confused parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. The following excerpt still applies today. Quite. The arguments are as lethal as they were in 2008: “Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to Darwin, myself yours truly, and many others. I will still give you a kick in the butt for your barbaric attitude. “In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity for ANY LOW SPEED applications. This includes stellar aberration. It is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. shrug “Kowtow! Now, get lost, and stop whining.” That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing aberration without using the principle of relativity. Compute aberration without the principle of relativity? :-) Wublee .... :-) Why did you replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of 2008? The only difference between the 2008 version and the 2010 version is that the former was written in Word, while the latter is written in LaTex. The content is exactly the same, the changes are purely cosmetic. The original 2008 version: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Ste...ration_old.pdf The 2010 version: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf In both versions I have calculated stellar aberration both according to the Lorentz transform and according to the Galilean transform. The difference is unmeasurable. Because: tan(v/c) ~= sin(v/c) ~= v/c when v/c 1 The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor. No wonder his is still too sore. Ahahahaha... I see that you are desperate to divert the attention from your blunder, which was that you claimed that I had confused stellar aberration and parallax. You don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-) [Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped] You mean this? And you also proved that even if it is experimentally proven that the velocity of the star contributes nothing to stellar aberration, the velocity of the star is very much important in determining this aberration. http://tinyurl.com/lswgnz ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS You really don't like to be reminded of your blunders, do you? :-) Because it is a blunder to insist that the velocity of the star must contribute to stellar aberration when it is experimentally proven that it doesn't. Isn't it? BTW, why do you think that your whining when I remind you of your blunders is kicking my ass? :-) Now I will get lost. I have had my fun for now, but I am sure you yet again will give me an opportunity to remind you of your blunders. Until then, have nice days! -- Paul http://www.gethome.no/paulba/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What is or is not a paradox?
On Jan 3, 6:07*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jan 3, 2:41 am, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote: Koobee Wublee wrote: Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, the common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of the hypotheses. *This is scientific method. Tom has bragged about these experimental verifications for SR since he became a priest to SR long away. *Yet, these experimental verifications (every single one of them with no exceptions) also verify any of the antitheses to SR. *Thus, claiming SR valid because it is verified by all sorts of experiments is just plain stupid, lack of professionalism, misapplication of scientific method, and downright deceitful. *This is not science anymore but a voodoo cult. *shrug Antitheses to SR a ** *Voigt transformation ** *Larmor’s transformation ** *Infinite transformations discovered by Lorentz Each one says the Aether must exist. *Each one satisfies the null results of the MMX and more. *shrug paul andersen has play the mathemagic trick in the twins’ paradox. My mathematic trick:http://www.gethome.no/paulba/twins.html Koobee Wublee knows the little professor paul andersen just would not resist to get his butt kicked again. *Let’s spank more of the little professor’s ass. *Ahahaha... Now, he is demonstrating that he does not understand scientific method. Quite. It is quite clear that the Wubleean version of the scientific method is way beyond my mental abilities. Only to the little professor. *Please allow Koobee Wublee to repeat the essence of scientific method. *There is nothing wrong about the statement below. *shrug “Given two hypotheses where each is an antithesis to and thus invalidates the other, common sense says one must find experiments to validate only one of these hypotheses.” KW, you can never teach the willfully blind to see a rainbow. The exact episode is like the children’s story “Blind men and the elephant”. *Apparently, paul is too busy chasing chickens near the Arctic Circle that he lost the meaning of what scientific method is. Gee! *You can even take hints from children’s story books. Ahahahaha... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_the_Elephant Please do bookmark this one. *So, a few months or years down the road, we can only again laugh at the little professor from Norway. Ahahahaha... The little professor from Norway (Trondheim to be exact) is an illiterate in science. *What do you expect from an Einstein Dingleberry anyway? *:-) Koobee Wublee hopes the sperm lover will do as you wish. *Why don’t you haul it away as a fumble from Koobee Wublee? *Bookmark it, and save Koobee Wublee the work in the future. *Come on, paul. *Do it.. Oh, still sore, eh? *:-) *Looking for every possible opportunities to get back at Koobee Wublee? *shrug Your argument are as lethal as always. You bet. *shrug Only an idiot would write what Paul did. For example, you proved me wrong when I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/LTconsistent.pdf thought it was possible to set three clocks to zero at the instant when they were co-located: http://tinyurl.com/34dv5p8 On page 3 right below Figure 2, you have delta = (delta_A – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) That's my favorite equation of all time! Just love it. Where ** *B^2 = v^2 / c^2 It can easily be Delta_A = (delta – blah blah blah) / sqrt(1 – B^2) The bottom line is the equation describing the segment of Minkowski spacetime using your labeling system: ** *c^2 dt_AC^2 – ds_AC^2 = c^2 dt_BC^2 – ds_BC^2 Where ** *ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 The equation can be written as follows. ** *dt_AC^2 (1 – B_AC^2) = dt_BC^2 (1 – B_BC^2) Where ** *B_AC c = Speed of C as observed by A ** *B_BC c = Speed of C as observed by B From A’s point of view trying to compare the rate of time flows with C, B and C are the same. *Thus, the equation above simplifies into the following. ** dt_AB^2 (1 – B_AB^2) = dt_BB^2 (1 – B_BB^2) = dt_BB^2 Where ** *B_AB c = Speed of B as observed by A ** *B_BB c = 0 On the other hand, from C’s pint of view observing A, B and A are the same. *Thus, the spacetime equation has to be interpreted differently as the following. ** dt_AA^2 (1 – B_AA^2) = dt_BA^2 (1 – B_BA^2) = dt_AA^2 Where ** *B_AA c = 0 ** *B_BA c = Speed of A as observed by B The only time when there is no paradox is when (B_AB = B_BA = 0). This is what the Lorentz symmetry is all about such that there is no special treatment on the one that is moving, and the little professor from Norway fails miserably on this one. *SPANK *SPANK *SPANK It is time for paul to join another paul aka sylvia, absolute dick, little bitch, etc. better known as PD for another divine vision to resolve the paradox --- projection of proper time. *Tom used to believe in that crap, but he is now back to the first divine vision promoted by promoted by Olivia Newton-John’s grandfather, Max Born. shrug Nice connection! ONJ and Born. "Have you never been mellow, have you never tried, to find the comfort, from inside..." try Dan Singh with QT's VV of Travolta fame. Sorry, I had one of those greasy free thought moments. Actually KW, I was searching for your recent Zardoz reference, and instead, found beautiful Born Olivia. Still perusing threads... And you made me aware that I in this paper: http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/Stellar_aberration.pdf had confused parallax and aberration: http://tinyurl.com/nje25b The great post of Yours Truly happened in 2008. *The following excerpt still applies today. “Please pick up all your **** from this thread and apologize to Darwin, myself yours truly, and many others. *I will still give you a kick in the butt for your barbaric attitude. “In the meantime, it is crucial to apply the principle of relativity for ANY LOW SPEED applications. *This includes stellar aberration. *It is merely a part of applications on Doppler effect. *shrug “Kowtow! *Now, get lost, and stop whining.” That original pdf paper in 2008 had the gross error of computing aberration without using the principle of relativity. *Why did you replace it with a 2010 version which happened after the discussion of 2008? *The whole thing must be really haunting the little professor. No wonder his is still too sore. *Ahahahaha... [Rest of complaints on his sore butt snipped] ONE MORE KICK IN THE ASS KW... never be intimidated by they-the-them ganging up on you. Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What is or is not a paradox? | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 9 | January 2nd 13 04:41 PM |
The Cow Paradox | Keith Wood | SETI | 5 | December 30th 06 12:10 AM |
what if paradox | kjakja | Misc | 130 | December 12th 04 04:09 AM |