The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
misuse of the SR equations.

They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
right.

They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
quickly.

Again, they are right.

But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.

They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
rather than 30 years old.

Which is still true.

But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.

This is obviously absurd.

This is what has been called, from the beginning of the theory, the
Langevin paradox.

To answer it, the physicists of the world then put the dust under the
carpet for one hundred and twenty years.

It has been said that "the watches were going crazy", or "that there was a
time-gap", or that "it" was because of the accelerations "or that" the
second twin was jumping out of frame ".

However, the cause of the misunderstanding is not there.

Sit well in your chair.

The reason for the paradox is that they are using the wrong equation.

You must not use t '= t/sqrt(1-v²/c²).

But t '= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

In short, if it is necessary to take into account the chronotropy (in the
denominator), it is also necessary to take into account the spatial
anisotropy (in the numerator).

The paradox then disappears completely.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
> misuse of the SR equations.
>
> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
> right.
>
> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
> quickly.
>
> Again, they are right.
>
> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
>
> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
> rather than 30 years old.
>
> Which is still true.
>
> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.

No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.

This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
and the thing you just stated is the common conceptual mistake that most
beginning students make. You have made the same mistake.

Since this is a known beginner mistake, and since most relativity books go
on to explain WHY this is a mistake and what relativity in fact says
instead, then reading a book would seem to be the best way to clear this up
for you.

>
> This is obviously absurd.
>
> This is what has been called, from the beginning of the theory, the
> Langevin paradox.
>
> To answer it, the physicists of the world then put the dust under the
> carpet for one hundred and twenty years.
>
> It has been said that "the watches were going crazy", or "that there was a
> time-gap", or that "it" was because of the accelerations "or that" the
> second twin was jumping out of frame ".
>
> However, the cause of the misunderstanding is not there.
>
> Sit well in your chair.
>
> The reason for the paradox is that they are using the wrong equation.
>
> You must not use t '= t/sqrt(1-v²/c²).
>
> But t '= t (1+cosµ.v/c)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>
> In short, if it is necessary to take into account the chronotropy (in the
> denominator), it is also necessary to take into account the spatial
> anisotropy (in the numerator).
>
> The paradox then disappears completely.
>
> R.H.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :

Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

Still no answer?

Still no answer?

Le 13/12/2021 à 00:33, rotchm a écrit :
> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :
>
> Question: Why did you respond to "him"?
>
> Still no answer?
>
> Still no answer?

Why am I answering?

Well, quite simply because I'm nice, and I answer everyone (even
Jean-Pierre).

Why do you want me to segregate?

R.H.

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 6:41:07 PM UTC-5, Richard Hachel wrote:

> Why am I answering?
>
> Well, quite simply because I'm nice,

Did you not notice that it was the troll?

Answering him is NOT NICE:
Why do you support "noise", support irrelevant rants that have nothing to do with relativity?
Supporting name calling, and making fun of you...That is what the troll is doing, and making you do it.
Are you that desperate for attention?

On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> > The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
> > misuse of the SR equations.
> >
> > They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
> > right.
> >
> > They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
> > symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
> > quickly.
> >
> > Again, they are right.
> >
> > But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
> > reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
> >
> > They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
> > rather than 30 years old.
> >
> > Which is still true.
> >
> > But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
> > it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
> > of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
>
> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,

The puzzle is to brainwash some fools. It's obvious
that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
a relativistic idiot may pretend.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
>>> misuse of the SR equations.
>>>
>>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
>>> right.
>>>
>>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
>>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
>>> quickly.
>>>
>>> Again, they are right.
>>>
>>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
>>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
>>>
>>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
>>> rather than 30 years old.
>>>
>>> Which is still true.
>>>
>>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
>>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
>>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
>> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
>>
>> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
>
> The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.

Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
brainwashing!

> It's obvious
> that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
> to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
> a relativistic idiot may pretend.
>

And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar
and clock on returning to earth. He’d NEVER ask why his twin has grown
children when the traveling twin cannot account for that many years passing
on the ship. No. Just reset the calendar and clock with no questions,
because that’s the right thing to do, according to some Polish guy with
foam on his lips.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 14:46:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
> >>> misuse of the SR equations.
> >>>
> >>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
> >>> right.
> >>>
> >>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
> >>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
> >>> quickly.
> >>>
> >>> Again, they are right.
> >>>
> >>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
> >>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
> >>>
> >>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
> >>> rather than 30 years old.
> >>>
> >>> Which is still true.
> >>>
> >>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
> >>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
> >>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
> >> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
> >>
> >> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
> >
> > The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.
> Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
> brainwashing!

Oppositely, poor idiot; dangerous brainwashing is a form
of teaching; but, you're right that everyone knows that,
except maybe you.

> > It's obvious
> > that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
> > to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
> > a relativistic idiot may pretend.
> >
> And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar

Odd, poor idiot, even assuming together with your
moronic bunch that clocks are local devices, the
calendar is still not. If he'is dumb and can't maintain
it correctly during his travel he will have to do it after.
Simple.
As for "why" - the most probable reason would be -
being confused by Giant Guru and his idiocies.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 14:46:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
>>>>> misuse of the SR equations.
>>>>>
>>>>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
>>>>> right.
>>>>>
>>>>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
>>>>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, they are right.
>>>>>
>>>>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
>>>>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
>>>>>
>>>>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
>>>>> rather than 30 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is still true.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
>>>>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
>>>>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
>>>> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
>>>>
>>>> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
>>>
>>> The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.
>> Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
>> brainwashing!
>
> Oppositely, poor idiot; dangerous brainwashing is a form
> of teaching; but, you're right that everyone knows that,
> except maybe you.
>
>>> It's obvious
>>> that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
>>> to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
>>> a relativistic idiot may pretend.
>>>
>> And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar
>
> Odd, poor idiot, even assuming together with your
> moronic bunch that clocks are local devices, the
> calendar is still not.

Oh, but it is. Just a few miles apart, two locations on opposite sides of
international date line have different dates.

Moreover, there are at least two contexts for year. There is the context of
what year it is according to some earth reference, and there is a year
defined as the elapsing of a certain number of local seconds.

But some people have difficulty following contexts and the shift of
meanings associated with them.

> If he'is dumb and can't maintain
> it correctly during his travel he will have to do it after.

Again, you seem to think that “correctly” means tying to some earth
reference. What standards body tells you that this is the “correct” method?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t like standards bodies because you feel they
forbid you and you don’t like that, so you just take as “correct” whatever
YOUR common sense tells you is correct.

> Simple.
> As for "why" - the most probable reason would be -
> being confused by Giant Guru and his idiocies.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 15:33:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 14:46:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
> >>>>> misuse of the SR equations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
> >>>>> right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
> >>>>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
> >>>>> quickly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, they are right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
> >>>>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
> >>>>> rather than 30 years old.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is still true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
> >>>>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
> >>>>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
> >>>> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
> >>>
> >>> The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.
> >> Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
> >> brainwashing!
> >
> > Oppositely, poor idiot; dangerous brainwashing is a form
> > of teaching; but, you're right that everyone knows that,
> > except maybe you.
> >
> >>> It's obvious
> >>> that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
> >>> to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
> >>> a relativistic idiot may pretend.
> >>>
> >> And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar
> >
> > Odd, poor idiot, even assuming together with your
> > moronic bunch that clocks are local devices, the
> > calendar is still not.
> Oh, but it is.

Does it depend on your speed somehow?

> Moreover, there are at least two contexts for year. There is the context of
> what year it is according to some earth reference, and there is a year
> defined as the elapsing of a certain number of local seconds.

You've created the former to make your idiocies
a bit less idiotic; but, well, I can accept such context
exists. Just not when we're talking about the calendar
and dates. The calendar is solar like it always was.

> > If he'is dumb and can't maintain
> > it correctly during his travel he will have to do it after.
> Again, you seem to think that “correctly” means tying to some earth
> reference.

Yes.

> What standards body tells you that this is the “correct” method?

I've told you once; there is a whole world outside
your puny sandpit of standard bodies and their
regulations.

> Oh, that’s right, you don’t like standards bodies because you feel they
> forbid you and you don’t like that

No. I don't like it only when they try to forbid common
sense for the sake of some insane ideology.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 15:33:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 14:46:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
>>>>>>> misuse of the SR equations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
>>>>>>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
>>>>>>> quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, they are right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
>>>>>>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
>>>>>>> rather than 30 years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is still true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
>>>>>>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
>>>>>>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
>>>>>> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
>>>>>
>>>>> The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.
>>>> Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
>>>> brainwashing!
>>>
>>> Oppositely, poor idiot; dangerous brainwashing is a form
>>> of teaching; but, you're right that everyone knows that,
>>> except maybe you.
>>>
>>>>> It's obvious
>>>>> that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
>>>>> to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
>>>>> a relativistic idiot may pretend.
>>>>>
>>>> And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar
>>>
>>> Odd, poor idiot, even assuming together with your
>>> moronic bunch that clocks are local devices, the
>>> calendar is still not.
>> Oh, but it is.
>
> Does it depend on your speed somehow?
>
>> Moreover, there are at least two contexts for year. There is the context of
>> what year it is according to some earth reference, and there is a year
>> defined as the elapsing of a certain number of local seconds.
>
> You've created the former to make your idiocies
> a bit less idiotic; but, well, I can accept such context
> exists. Just not when we're talking about the calendar
> and dates. The calendar is solar like it always was.

Ah, so you DO have problems with different contextual meanings for year. No
surprise. You have lots of problems with contextual meanings for lots of
words.

>
>>> If he'is dumb and can't maintain
>>> it correctly during his travel he will have to do it after.
>> Again, you seem to think that “correctly” means tying to some earth
>> reference.
>
> Yes.
>
>> What standards body tells you that this is the “correct” method?
>
> I've told you once; there is a whole world outside
> your puny sandpit of standard bodies and their
> regulations.

Especially the whole world inside your head and what YOUR common sense
tells you is correct, including the misapprehension that just because you
CALL it “common” makes it common.

As you’ve confessed before, the way you think is not common at all. Your
“common sense” is likewise not as common as you claim.

>
>> Oh, that’s right, you don’t like standards bodies because you feel they
>> forbid you and you don’t like that
>
> No. I don't like it only when they try to forbid common
> sense for the sake of some insane ideology.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 15:55:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 15:33:12 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 14:46:37 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 21:38:53 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Hachel <r.ha...@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The error of relativistic physicists, and which leads to a paradox, is the
> >>>>>>> misuse of the SR equations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They correctly say that the laws of physics are covariant, and they are
> >>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They say, like me, that the notion of relativity of chronotropy is
> >>>>>>> symmetrical, and that each observer sees the other's watches beat less
> >>>>>>> quickly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, they are right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But where an enormous difficulty arises (paradox), it is when they try to
> >>>>>>> reconcile this with what is happening in the Langevin.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They say the second twin returns younger than the first, 18 years old
> >>>>>>> rather than 30 years old.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which is still true.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But if everything were true, then we would have the following absurdity:
> >>>>>>> it is that the twin who returns, and who also always saw the chronotropy
> >>>>>>> of the other pass less quickly, would see his brother barely 11 years old.
> >>>>>> No. Relativity does not claim that happens, and it would not happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This puzzle was designed to TEACH introductory students about relativity,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The puzzle is to brainwash some fools.
> >>>> Because everyone knows teaching is just another form of dangerous
> >>>> brainwashing!
> >>>
> >>> Oppositely, poor idiot; dangerous brainwashing is a form
> >>> of teaching; but, you're right that everyone knows that,
> >>> except maybe you.
> >>>
> >>>>> It's obvious
> >>>>> that in the real world returning twins would set his clock
> >>>>> to Earth date and time; but as log as it didn't happen
> >>>>> a relativistic idiot may pretend.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And the returning twin would NEVER ask why he’d have to reset his calendar
> >>>
> >>> Odd, poor idiot, even assuming together with your
> >>> moronic bunch that clocks are local devices, the
> >>> calendar is still not.
> >> Oh, but it is.
> >
> > Does it depend on your speed somehow?
> >
> >> Moreover, there are at least two contexts for year. There is the context of
> >> what year it is according to some earth reference, and there is a year
> >> defined as the elapsing of a certain number of local seconds.
> >
> > You've created the former to make your idiocies
> > a bit less idiotic; but, well, I can accept such context
> > exists. Just not when we're talking about the calendar
> > and dates. The calendar is solar like it always was.
> Ah, so you DO have problems with different contextual meanings for year.

Ah, so you DO fabricate and slander. No surprise.
BTW - what we have started from? Somehow you had
no objections that the returning twins will immediately
put your "years" he counted (if even he did) into a trash
can and reset his calendar to the "years" of Earth and Sol.
Or did I misunderstand?

> As you’ve confessed before, the way you think is not common at all.

Common sense is not a way a person thinks.
Common sense is common sense. It's a way
society "thinks".I may be mistaken about it,
why not. It's just that I'm a professional on
the field of informational constructs and you're
just an arrogant not-even-layman deeply believing
that his incredible wisdom is unfailiable - everywhere.

crappy pants rotchm wrote:

> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 10:48:57 AM UTC-5, Richard Hachel
> wrote:
>> Le 11/12/2021 à 16:02, Emmet Buchs a écrit :
>
> Question: Why did you respond to "him"?

you are spamming this forum with off-topic crap, you stinking subhuman
excrement. Stupid like a door, all you do is spamming. Fuck off.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ... It's just that I'm a professional on
> the field of informational constructs

Give us a break Maciej! You are not a professional in
anything even close to information. You cannot even put
your pants alone.

On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > ... It's just that I'm a professional on
> > the field of informational constructs
> Give us a break Maciej!

Well... No?

> You are not a professional in
> anything even close to information.

Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
trash. Anyway, your barking doesn't impress me, like
always.

On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> ... It's just that I'm a professional on
>>> the field of informational constructs
>> Give us a break Maciej!
>
> Well... No?
>
>> You are not a professional in
>> anything even close to information.
>
> Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
> trash.

Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
true professional janitor if there ever was one!

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 02:30:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> ... It's just that I'm a professional on
> >>> the field of informational constructs
> >> Give us a break Maciej!
> >
> > Well... No?
> >
> >> You are not a professional in
> >> anything even close to information.
> >
> > Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
> > trash.
> Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
> true professional janitor if there ever was one!

Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and
slanders. As expected from a relativistic stinker.

On 12/14/2021 3:31 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 02:30:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:

>>>> You are not a professional in
>>>> anything even close to information.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
>>> trash.
>> Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
>> true professional janitor if there ever was one!
>
> Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and
> slanders. As expected from a relativistic stinker.

Just like you, Maciej, not providing evidence of being any sort of
professional despite your claim!
>

On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 16:55:38 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/14/2021 3:31 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 02:30:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>
> >>>> You are not a professional in
> >>>> anything even close to information.
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
> >>> trash.
> >> Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
> >> true professional janitor if there ever was one!
> >
> > Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and
> > slanders. As expected from a relativistic stinker.
> Just like you, Maciej

If I said - "you're a murderous pedophile, stupid Mike" -
I would be just like you.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and slanders. As expected from
>> a relativistic stinker.
>
> Just like you, Maciej, not providing evidence of being any sort of
> professional despite your claim!

you are again talking about evidences regarding your
*manned_moon_landing*, but never put the money where your mouth is. Show
your evidences and the proofs to that man. To close the discussion.

On 12/14/2021 11:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 16:55:38 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 12/14/2021 3:31 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 02:30:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>
>>>>>> You are not a professional in
>>>>>> anything even close to information.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
>>>>> trash.
>>>> Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
>>>> true professional janitor if there ever was one!
>>>
>>> Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and
>>> slanders. As expected from a relativistic stinker.
>> Just like you, Maciej[, not providing evidence of being any sort of professional despite your claim!]
>
> If I said - "you're a murderous pedophile, stupid Mike" -
> I would be just like you.

Don't snip my reply to make it ambiguous and then attack the changed
quote! I commented on the lack of evidence of your arguments which is
what you just accused me of. And you know it.
>

On Saturday, 18 December 2021 at 19:25:45 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 12/14/2021 11:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 16:55:38 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 12/14/2021 3:31 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 02:30:41 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/13/2021 4:20 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 13 December 2021 at 21:12:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> You are not a professional in
> >>>>>> anything even close to information.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fortunately, my boss doesn't share your opinion, poor
> >>>>> trash.
> >>>> Yes, Maciej's boss is proud of how well Maciej cleans those toilets! A
> >>>> true professional janitor if there ever was one!
> >>>
> >>> Lacking any arguments, stupid Mike lies and
> >>> slanders. As expected from a relativistic stinker.
> >> Just like you, Maciej[, not providing evidence of being any sort of professional despite your claim!]
> >
> > If I said - "you're a murderous pedophile, stupid Mike" -
> > I would be just like you.
> Don't snip my reply to make it ambiguous and then attack the changed
> quote!

I'm not attacking you, stupid Mike.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 12/14/2021 11:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> If I said - "you're a murderous pedophile, stupid Mike" -
>> I would be just like you.
>
> Don't snip my reply to make it ambiguous and then attack the changed
> quote! I commented on the lack of evidence of your arguments which is
> what you just accused me of. And you know it.

fair enough. Now read this and tell me what you think.

When Mans Laws Fail Natural Law Prevails by Brother Alexis Bugnolo
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2paVx6QfXmZw/