Crackpot "Androcles" exposed

In article ,
Androcles wrote:

"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". --

I wouldn't want to join such a club either.

-- Richard

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote in message
...
| jacob navia wrote in message
|
| Le 05/09/11 13:59, SolomonW a écrit :
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:46:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| and the incredibly
| stupid moron actually COPIES text from my page hoping for a brownie
| point.
|
| I tend to agree that people that copy text from your page are moron.
| Nothing will convince you that you are wrong. So why does he bother?
|
| Problem is, if we never answer to crackpots, new users of this forum
| see only messages from them and they think its a crackpot newsgroup!
|
| Crackpots never answered to, go away. The others stay.
| All they need is attention, and they rather have their teeth kicked
| on a daily basis than be ignored.
| Enjoy!
|
| Dirk Vdm
|
Dork van der Belgian Waffle ages 10 years every 5 years by staying at home,
on paper. He's now 20 years older than he was in 2001.

"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- ref:

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...insEvents.html

Enjoy!

--Androcles

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| Androcles wrote:
|
| "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". --
Groucho Marx.


It takes a real ****head to snip the author of a quote, but never mind, I
put it back.

"Uncle Ben" wrote in message
...
On Sep 5, 8:54 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"SolomonW" wrote in message

...
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:46:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| and the incredibly
| stupid moron actually COPIES text from my page hoping for a brownie
| point.
|
| I tend to agree that people that copy text from your page are moron.

Oh good.
The text in question is on a photocopy of a page from "Nature"
magazine. Copying it when anyone can obtain the original or read
my page has to be the epitome of stupidity.

| Nothing will convince you that you are wrong.

Of course, because I am right.

| So why does he bother?

Because he's a stupid bigot and a complete imbecile that can't read
mathematics. There are lots of them about, they are as common as
pebbles on a beach. One needs to be really lucky to find a diamond
among them, someone that can actually divide instead of multiply,
but I keep looking.

Androcles makes the same mistake
=============================
Androcles hasn't made a mistake.
Bonehead's mistake is the useless illogical redneck can't ****ing read
anymore than navia could.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
Scroll the page down, ****head.



According to relativity Bonehead would only live for two years
if he were at rest. Now he's over 80 years old because he keeps
moving, which proves relativity is correct.

.... Woahhhh... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha....,

---[][ Androcles 16 : Kikes 0, zilch, null & nada ][]---

Le Juif mal et merde "jacob navia"
proved his incandescent stupidity when he said that the
proud Israeli Zionist Yehiel Porat was an Anti-Semite, &
now Juif idiot Navia, le Grand Mal kike, cranked himself
while he lied and wrote:

Androcles (together with hanson) is one of the worst. I do
not read everything Andro writes, but just for fun I followed
his ramblings in the thread "What is wrong with 'Mainstream' ..."
He cited a scientific article of 1979 in his web site:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...uons/Muons.htm
Ok. I went to that site and *read* the article displayed there
(only a page is displayed)

Androcles wrote:
SCROLL DOWN, ****WIT!
The imbecile "jacob navia" is too stupid to know how to scroll
down a page. He does not read ANYTHING that critiques his
Jewish tin god, he keeps his head firmly up Einstein's arse so
as not to see it, and the incredibly stupid moron actually
COPIES text from my page hoping for a brownie point.

Kike "SolomonW" wrote:
I tend to agree that people that copy text from your
page are moron. Nothing will convince you that you
are wrong. So why does he bother?
Check out sci.physics.research which is our moderated NG.

Androcles wrote:
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member".
-- Groucho Marx.

Assoc. Juif "Richard Tobin" wrote
I wouldn't want to join such a club either.

Androcles wrote:
It takes a real ****head to snip the author of a quote,
but never mind, I put it back.

hanson wrote:
---[][ Androcles 16 : Kikes 0, zilch, null & nada ][]---

Look at these kikes, all being Einstein Dingleberries,
EDs, who worship Albert's sphincter, ganging up on
Andro ... ahaha...
Even the Belgian Waffler, who managed to fire himself
from his job, joined them... ahahaha... This is all fully in
accord with the script laid down & can be seen in the
words of the eminent Jewish Scholar Rosenthal in his
http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT

Thanks for the laughs, all you EDs.... ahahahahanson.

Uncle Ben wrote in news:f07e6948-b0f2-4c0f-8baf-
:

On Sep 5, 8:54*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"SolomonW" wrote in message

...
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:46:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| and the incredibly
| stupid moron actually COPIES text from my page hoping for a brownie
| point.
|
| I tend to agree that people that copy text from your page are moron.

Oh good.
The text in question is on a photocopy of a page from "Nature"
magazine. *Copying it when anyone can obtain the original or read
my page has to be the epitome of stupidity.

| Nothing will convince you that you are wrong.

Of course, because I am right.

| So why does he bother?

Because he's a stupid bigot and a complete imbecile that can't read
mathematics. There are lots of them about, they are as common as
pebbles on a beach. One needs to be really lucky to find a diamond
among them, someone that can actually divide instead of multiply,
but I keep looking.

Androcles makes the same mistake in his derivation of the "Einstein
expansion," replacing what he thinks is the erroneous "Lorentz
contraction" derivation of Einstein.

He just cannot understand hoe a "moving" frame of reference can be the
rest frame of a moving particle. No wonder he thinks that the
equations mean a "time contraction" to go with his "length expansion."

But all is consistent with his belief in a smallest real number
greater than zero [...]

I believe there is one. I test it out by putting it into ln(x).

Coincidently I have almost reached infinity.

"eric gisse" wrote:
Coincidently I have almost reached infinity.

hanson wrote:
Far out!, junior, but not far enough for you to get
your BSc, even after you sat in college for 9 years?
Is your recent quiescence here due you to having
gone back to school or because of a Flu?

On Sep 8, 4:33 am, eric gisse wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote in news:f07e6948-b0f2-4c0f-8baf-
:



On Sep 5, 8:54 am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"SolomonW" wrote in message

.. .
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:46:12 +0100, Androcles wrote:
|
| and the incredibly
| stupid moron actually COPIES text from my page hoping for a brownie
| point.
|
| I tend to agree that people that copy text from your page are moron.

Oh good.
The text in question is on a photocopy of a page from "Nature"
magazine. Copying it when anyone can obtain the original or read
my page has to be the epitome of stupidity.

| Nothing will convince you that you are wrong.

Of course, because I am right.

| So why does he bother?

Because he's a stupid bigot and a complete imbecile that can't read
mathematics. There are lots of them about, they are as common as
pebbles on a beach. One needs to be really lucky to find a diamond
among them, someone that can actually divide instead of multiply,
but I keep looking.

Androcles makes the same mistake in his derivation of the "Einstein
expansion," replacing what he thinks is the erroneous "Lorentz
contraction" derivation of Einstein.

He just cannot understand hoe a "moving" frame of reference can be the
rest frame of a moving particle. No wonder he thinks that the
equations mean a "time contraction" to go with his "length expansion."

But all is consistent with his belief in a smallest real number
greater than zero [...]

I believe there is one. I test it out by putting it into ln(x).

Coincidently I have almost reached infinity.

what number you used giving you infinity?