Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

"Art Deco" Put on his red silk panties and posted:

Lovely kookfroth today, saucerhead.

Putz is calling you back to bed, Colorado Carl.

C.H.J.

"Phineas T Puddleduck" Posted while
getting "rammed" by Art Deco:

The problem with a discussion is it needs two AA. And as of yet, no one
has been able to satisfactorily answer any questions. So don't try
playing the victim AA, I even pointed you to resources to try and answer
my questions....

Did you get some "uv points" from the Gay Netcabalers for that "clap-trap"?

"Phineas T Puddleduck" Spewed
gradeschool grammar:

me and Art are different people.

Try "Art and I" illiterate ****wit!

HJ

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

It has become abundantly clear that Puddleduck didn't come here for an
open minded discussion.

This is patently false, he was a participant for weeks in that "flowing
space" thread during which time all you saucerheads ran away from the
hard questions.

He just wants to play pin the tail on the kook
games with Art Deco.

Double-A

The problem with a discussion is it needs two AA. And as of yet, no one
has been able to satisfactorily answer any questions. So don't try
playing the victim AA, I even pointed you to resources to try and answer
my questions....

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:

How does geometry (e.g., 'curvature'), which is a _description_ of
something, purport to _cause_ that which it describes?

By analogy, how does a speedometer readout, which is a description,
_cause_ that which it describes?

Very poor analogy Bill. And only another reason why you don't understand
the nature of causality. The nature of spacetime and geometry is not so
easiily pigeonholed.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:


And the answer is NOT "mass tells space how to curve and space tells
mass how to move."

Yet it is



(And regarding the questions on the fixed value of c and EM propagation,
the answer is NOT "Maxwell").

Oh my god - Bill, are you THAT stupid that you are now decrying Maxwell!


Thus far Duckie, as a whiz kid of the void-space paradigm and the
supremacy of Geometry, has given nothing but insipid and meaningless
hoo-haw on these fundamental issues.
Until he can address these fundamental issues with more
than vacuousness and vapidity, there is simply no basis for dialog.
None.

Again, you run away from the simplest of questions.


--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article . com,
"Double-A" wrote:

But regarding the "container issue" you refer to, this
was discussed at length here in past years if you recall. Remember
*embedded-ness* and the exortation to always think 'embeddedness'? Take
a free hydrogen atom drifting free in space. It's analogous to a vacuole
or 'bubble' embedded in its medium. Every atom is likewise a complex of
'bubbles' embedded in the medium.
By analogy, the sonoluminescing bubble, driven by an
ultrasound field and incandescent at white heat, is embedded in *its*
medium. Particle/antiparticle pairs are
like 'bubbles' popping out of solution in THEIR medium, then dissolving
back into solution.. back into "nothing".

EMBEDDEDNESS in the sub-Planck-wavelength Fluid of space, is the
'containment' Duckie has no concept or comprehension of.

Embedded in itself? Oh bill you are truly an idiot.

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:


Meanwhile just let Deco-Duckie play in his puddle. (-:

oc

An idiot with only half a working brain cell would easily see from our
headers me and Art are different people.

Ah, wait, you don't even understand Maxwellian electrodynamics and the
nature of the value of c from it do you?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation and look
under derivation

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
(Bill Sheppard) wrote:

As far as Einstein's elfishness on the nature of space, it can only be
one of three things: 1. He's stupid. Or 2. He's a charlatan and a fraud
as Lindner contends, for letting the 'no medium' doctrine usurp science
while knowing full well better. Or 3. It's an act of supreme wisdom and
self-sacrifice to keep science safely corralled, given its track record
with nuclear energy.

I prefer

4) You're all a bunch of stupid idiots who have never let your complete
lack of understanding of physics after c. 1900 stop you from coming up
with crackpot idea's...

--

Saucerhead lingo #2102 "However, since PTP is in reality NOT a budding
astrophysicist..." ... "Perhaps if we try distraction as a tactic people
will forget we cannot answer simple conflicting issues with our nonsense
theory"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

My, oh my. Deco-Duckie's about to have have a meltdown, stamping his
widdle web feet, hollering "answer my questions!".. while refusing a
cogent answer to the one question PIVOTAL to his void-space / 'no
medium' regime:

How does Geometry (e.g., 'curvature'), which is a _description_ of
something, purport to _cause_ that which it
describes?

Until DD can supply a rational answer, his doctrine has not a leg to
stand on. Thus far, he's demonstrated he has no concept of the
distinction between *descriptions of effects* and _explanations of
causation_. He also confuses the terms 'causation' and 'causality', the
latter having a different nuance such in "violation of causality", or
backward signalling in time.

In his constant allusion to Maxwell, DD apprently is unaware that the
reality of the spatial medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell who referred
to it as a 'superfluid' or perfect fluid. It was equally a no brainer to
other pioneers of the electrical age including Hertz, Faraday, Tesla,
and to young theoreticians Lorentz and Einstein.

If DD can supply a cogent answer to how "nothing", by dint of its
"curvature" can accomplish the herculean tasks that gravity routinely
demonstrates, THEN there might be a basis for dialog.

DD's vacuous statement "The nature of spacetime and geometry is not so
easily pigeonholed" does not qualify.

And as for the 'answers' that DD keeps clamoring for regarding the
DMP(details, minutiae and particulars) of the spatial medium, these have
been addressed here in depth previously, and also in the papers of
Lindner, Warren, Shifman and Paxton. But right now it amounts to a
pearls/swine thing to go over it all again on the demand of one
pinheaded little qwacker.

oc