I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.

Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
so...

What is the purpose of all of this?

On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:42:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
>
> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> so...
>
> What is the purpose of all of this?

It's for those people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
so. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
fellow idiots are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:42:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
>> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
>> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
>> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
>>
>> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
>> so...
>>
>> What is the purpose of all of this?
>
> It's for those people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> so. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
> too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
> fellow idiots are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.

You're really betting on this? Seriously? You had such a low grasp
on reality?

On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:57:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:42:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> >> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> >> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> >> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> >>
> >> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> >> so...
> >>
> >> What is the purpose of all of this?
> >
> > It's for those people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> > so. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
> > too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
> > fellow idiots are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> You're really betting on this? Seriously?

I'm not really betting on this, poor stinker; just in a case...

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:57:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:42:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
>>>> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
>>>> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
>>>> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
>>>>
>>>> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
>>>> so...
>>>>
>>>> What is the purpose of all of this?
>>>
>>> It's for those people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
>>> so. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
>>> too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
>>> fellow idiots are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
>> You're really betting on this? Seriously?
>
> I'm not really betting on this, poor stinker; just in a case...

I had guessed you don't even believe you own sh*it.

So, again: what is the purpose of all shit pathetic exposition of
your own stupidity, in a place your grandchildren can (and will)
read it?

On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 18:13:24 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:57:20 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 13 January 2022 at 17:42:51 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> >>>> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> >>>> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> >>>> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> >>>> so...
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the purpose of all of this?
> >>>
> >>> It's for those people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> >>> so. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
> >>> too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
> >>> fellow idiots are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> >> You're really betting on this? Seriously?
> >
> > I'm not really betting on this, poor stinker; just in a case...
> I had guessed you don't even believe you own sh*it.
>
> So, again: what is the purpose of all shit pathetic exposition of
> your own stupidity, in a place your grandchildren can (and will)
> read it?

Jeez. So, again.
It's for those grandchildren; assuming (what is doubtful) that
they will. To let them admire how dumb as a rock, not bolted down
too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you and your
fellow idiots were, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
It's also for you, of course; to make you bark and spit even more
furiously than your average, poor stinker.

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
>
> Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> so...
>
> What is the purpose of all of this?

I think that all he knows is that the giant space rock he is piloting,
for whatever reason has always been according to what results in
the model whatever absolute term, what otherwise is entirely supported
in the theory by the relativistic calculation, of course what also would
be dynamical, here as with respect to space-time being current.

I.e., I imagine this attitude as from each day "for whatever reason,
all I can explain this is all built from one theory, I need a redundant
theory that for whatever reason, explains how to keep the giant space
rock, piloted."

Then, some mental pathology or personal reason has made it to be
where the simplest way to relay this generally, is to result that he
had offered himself even as wrong, that it's steadfast the rejection
or denial, because it's so inherent in the actual concern, that _at
least one thing is wrong with it_, it is the rhetorical, that he can simply
maintain "because of this 'belief' if unstated that more or less I believe
in a Newtonian space-time, that others have also as an Einsteinian
space-time, the extent of the theory on the geodesy must reconcile
with my static concerns, if it is to be a Newtonian and Einsteinian
space-time together", then though without having a solution then it's
pointing to that it's the status quo, then hating on the status quo,
is as where the hating is in a sense, "purely rhetorical outrage",
though that is the critical theory is reduced to irrelevance because
that makes it "the cause of opinion" or "theory of opinion",
then he is reduced to his authority at mission control, which we
don't know, that all there is time for each day is "damn".

Which for me as having Newtonian and Einsteinian space-time together,
as a result to say "for the theory everything at mission control is fine
and for that matter it even results there's a theory now that from
the status quo at least we'll have a theory that was can use to
explain these mission control programs from the 1970's", still
then is for "great now make it status quo so when a crew shows
up they actually have a clue because otherwise neither of us might
push the button".

So, I approach ignoring it as an exercise in underestimation.

I.e., in usual cases where people put down guy in rejection,
when they are wrong, I can add that, then, mostly fully
depend that guy on the thus gaining side, who is usually losing,
will stay on that side.

That though is the difference between a crank and the
guy who can only explain by consistent rejection.

I.e. it's kinds of polite to consider he might be a deaf-mute.

Then, as a tool in rhetoric, it's as simple as dissent,
that a lack of dissent doesn't always reflect a consensus.

It's though boring or not effective plain dissent or consistent rejection,
that a consensus itself isn't not plural.

Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 19:40:25 UTC+1, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> > logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> > bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> > are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> >
> > Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> > so...
> >
> > What is the purpose of all of this?
> I think that all he knows is that the giant space rock he is piloting,

Well, Ross, thinking requires some skill. Really.

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> > logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> > bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> > are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> >
> > Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> > so...
> >
> > What is the purpose of all of this?
> I think that all he knows is that the giant space rock he is piloting,
> for whatever reason has always been according to what results in
> the model whatever absolute term, what otherwise is entirely supported
> in the theory by the relativistic calculation, of course what also would
> be dynamical, here as with respect to space-time being current.
>
> I.e., I imagine this attitude as from each day "for whatever reason,
> all I can explain this is all built from one theory, I need a redundant
> theory that for whatever reason, explains how to keep the giant space
> rock, piloted."
>
> Then, some mental pathology or personal reason has made it to be
> where the simplest way to relay this generally, is to result that he
> had offered himself even as wrong, that it's steadfast the rejection
> or denial, because it's so inherent in the actual concern, that _at
> least one thing is wrong with it_, it is the rhetorical, that he can simply
> maintain "because of this 'belief' if unstated that more or less I believe
> in a Newtonian space-time, that others have also as an Einsteinian
> space-time, the extent of the theory on the geodesy must reconcile
> with my static concerns, if it is to be a Newtonian and Einsteinian
> space-time together", then though without having a solution then it's
> pointing to that it's the status quo, then hating on the status quo,
> is as where the hating is in a sense, "purely rhetorical outrage",
> though that is the critical theory is reduced to irrelevance because
> that makes it "the cause of opinion" or "theory of opinion",
> then he is reduced to his authority at mission control, which we
> don't know, that all there is time for each day is "damn".
>
> Which for me as having Newtonian and Einsteinian space-time together,
> as a result to say "for the theory everything at mission control is fine
> and for that matter it even results there's a theory now that from
> the status quo at least we'll have a theory that was can use to
> explain these mission control programs from the 1970's", still
> then is for "great now make it status quo so when a crew shows
> up they actually have a clue because otherwise neither of us might
> push the button".
>
> So, I approach ignoring it as an exercise in underestimation.
>
> I.e., in usual cases where people put down guy in rejection,
> when they are wrong, I can add that, then, mostly fully
> depend that guy on the thus gaining side, who is usually losing,
> will stay on that side.
>
> That though is the difference between a crank and the
> guy who can only explain by consistent rejection.
>
> I.e. it's kinds of polite to consider he might be a deaf-mute.
>
> Then, as a tool in rhetoric, it's as simple as dissent,
> that a lack of dissent doesn't always reflect a consensus.
>
> It's though boring or not effective plain dissent or consistent rejection,
> that a consensus itself isn't not plural.
>
> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........

I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.

And the mean reason for me is that you shield your thoughts with a thick wall of words, which is, somehow,
your automatized tactic to hide behind too extensive mental drift. It may be that you have mental itches, so
you have to scratch your brain until you deplete it of ideas OR that you are just a charlatan.

I knew for long that there are two ways to hide any truth:

1. Talk too much about it, and multiply any simple explanation into several threads of thought, trying to be coherent.
2. Say too little about the issue, and avoid expanding any point with further explanations.

Both are common practices in any activity by persons with some degree of intellectual coherence.

But you, a number 1 type, carry things to an extreme that indicates a severe mental pathology.

It's not that your mind is itching, so you need to scratch it by writing massive posts. It's that you are scratching your BRAIN, physically,
until exhaustion. To the eyes of some, you seem to be a tortured techno-intellectual guy.

But for others, like me, you are just a narcissist who think that fool people with your verbose posts.

At any case, I want you to know that your posts DISTILL NOTHINGNESS.

So, stop pretending or, if you are not, just double the dosage of your red pills.

Also, you could enter in a contest with Bodkin, who use similar tactics, even when more aggressive and with more ramifications.

Stop trying to sell the relativity shit, disguised as if you was Freud+Kant+Popper+Einstein reincarnated.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 20:25:54 UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> > > I wonder if you realize: you, who consider yourself as "one of the best
> > > logicians Humanity ever had", are exposing how dumb as a rock, not
> > > bolted down too tight, neither the sharpest knife in the drawer, you
> > > are, etc. in your daily shitstorm of posts inhere.
> > >
> > > Just think about people reading Usenet archives in a dozen years or
> > > so...
> > >
> > > What is the purpose of all of this?
> > I think that all he knows is that the giant space rock he is piloting,
> > for whatever reason has always been according to what results in
> > the model whatever absolute term, what otherwise is entirely supported
> > in the theory by the relativistic calculation, of course what also would
> > be dynamical, here as with respect to space-time being current.
> >
> > I.e., I imagine this attitude as from each day "for whatever reason,
> > all I can explain this is all built from one theory, I need a redundant
> > theory that for whatever reason, explains how to keep the giant space
> > rock, piloted."
> >
> > Then, some mental pathology or personal reason has made it to be
> > where the simplest way to relay this generally, is to result that he
> > had offered himself even as wrong, that it's steadfast the rejection
> > or denial, because it's so inherent in the actual concern, that _at
> > least one thing is wrong with it_, it is the rhetorical, that he can simply
> > maintain "because of this 'belief' if unstated that more or less I believe
> > in a Newtonian space-time, that others have also as an Einsteinian
> > space-time, the extent of the theory on the geodesy must reconcile
> > with my static concerns, if it is to be a Newtonian and Einsteinian
> > space-time together", then though without having a solution then it's
> > pointing to that it's the status quo, then hating on the status quo,
> > is as where the hating is in a sense, "purely rhetorical outrage",
> > though that is the critical theory is reduced to irrelevance because
> > that makes it "the cause of opinion" or "theory of opinion",
> > then he is reduced to his authority at mission control, which we
> > don't know, that all there is time for each day is "damn".
> >
> > Which for me as having Newtonian and Einsteinian space-time together,
> > as a result to say "for the theory everything at mission control is fine
> > and for that matter it even results there's a theory now that from
> > the status quo at least we'll have a theory that was can use to
> > explain these mission control programs from the 1970's", still
> > then is for "great now make it status quo so when a crew shows
> > up they actually have a clue because otherwise neither of us might
> > push the button".
> >
> > So, I approach ignoring it as an exercise in underestimation.
> >
> > I.e., in usual cases where people put down guy in rejection,
> > when they are wrong, I can add that, then, mostly fully
> > depend that guy on the thus gaining side, who is usually losing,
> > will stay on that side.
> >
> > That though is the difference between a crank and the
> > guy who can only explain by consistent rejection.
> >
> > I.e. it's kinds of polite to consider he might be a deaf-mute.
> >
> > Then, as a tool in rhetoric, it's as simple as dissent,
> > that a lack of dissent doesn't always reflect a consensus.
> >
> > It's though boring or not effective plain dissent or consistent rejection,
> > that a consensus itself isn't not plural.
> >
> > Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> > helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>
> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
>
> And the mean reason for me is that you shield your thoughts with a thick wall of words, which is, somehow,
> your automatized tactic to hide behind too extensive mental drift.

Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
....
> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.

If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
you ARE one, Maciej.

Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:

[snip ross rant]

>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
>
> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>
> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.

Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
>
> [snip ross rant]
>
>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
>>
>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>>
>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
>
> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not physicists, but
that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is why
engineers understand it better than physicists.”

Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping that
explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”

Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not going to
take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”

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

On 1/16/2022 2:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

[]

> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>
> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
>
> And the mean reason for me is that you shield your thoughts with a thick wall of words, which is, somehow,
> your automatized tactic to hide behind too extensive mental drift. It may be that you have mental itches, so
> you have to scratch your brain until you deplete it of ideas OR that you are just a charlatan.
>
> I knew for long that there are two ways to hide any truth:
>
> 1. Talk too much about it, and multiply any simple explanation into several threads of thought, trying to be coherent.
> 2. Say too little about the issue, and avoid expanding any point with further explanations.
>
> Both are common practices in any activity by persons with some degree of intellectual coherence.
>
> But you, a number 1 type, carry things to an extreme that indicates a severe mental pathology.
>
> It's not that your mind is itching, so you need to scratch it by writing massive posts. It's that you are scratching your BRAIN, physically,
> until exhaustion. To the eyes of some, you seem to be a tortured techno-intellectual guy.
>
> But for others, like me, you are just a narcissist who think that fool people with your verbose posts.
>
> At any case, I want you to know that your posts DISTILL NOTHINGNESS.
>
> So, stop pretending or, if you are not, just double the dosage of your red pills.
>
> Also, you could enter in a contest with Bodkin, who use similar tactics, even when more aggressive and with more ramifications.
>
> Stop trying to sell the relativity shit, disguised as if you was Freud+Kant+Popper+Einstein reincarnated.

You sure are doing a lot of projection here, Richard.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> ...
> > Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> you ARE one, Maciej.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:55:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> > Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> >
> > [snip ross rant]
> >
> >>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> >>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
> >>
> >> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
> >>
> >> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
> >
> > Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
> to engineers.

Odd, poor idiot, engineers don't deal with mystical
bullshit. Well, some do, but only as amateurs. Physics
is not for them.

> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”

Odd, poor idiot, math? Jargon? Don't you know that
everything your moronic physics needs and relies on
are EXPERIMENTS???!!! END OF STORY!!! PERIOD!!

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> ...
>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>
> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> like all serious clocks always did.

You've just done it again.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >
> > In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> > by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> > like all serious clocks always did.
> You've just done it again.

And I will do it many, many times more, poor stinker;
and all you can do about it is some furious barking
and spitting, together with your fellow stinkers.

Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
(>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)

>> [snip ross rant]
>>
>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
>>>
>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>>>
>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
>>
>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>
> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not physicists, but
> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is why
> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
>
> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping that
> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
>
> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not going to
> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
>

Totally nailed that :-)

Dirk Vdm

Op 16-jan.-2022 om 22:44 schreef Dirk Van de moortel:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson
>>>> wrote:
> (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)

make that 'or'

Dirk Vdm

>
>>> [snip ross rant]
>>>
>>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
>>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us
>>>>> together.
>>>>
>>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
>>>>
>>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to
>>>> meddle with you, Ross.
>>>
>>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be
>> left
>> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not
>> physicists, but
>> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is
>> why
>> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
>>
>> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
>> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping
>> that
>> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
>> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
>>
>> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
>> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not
>> going to
>> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
>> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
>> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
>>
>
> Totally nailed that :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 5:30:43 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> > On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 8:42:51 AM UTC-8, Python wrote:
> [snip ross rant]
> >> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> >> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together..
> >
> > Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
> >
> > I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
>
> Dirk Vdm

TALKING ABOUT IDIOCIES, HERE ARE SOME DERIVED FROM YOUR GAY PAGAN GOD, CORRUPTER OF WORLDS:

“Again, just as the electric field, for its part, depends upon the charges and is
instrumental in producing mechanical interaction between the charges, so we must
assume here that the metrical field (or, in mathematical language, the tensor with
components g_ik ) is related to the material filling the world.” (Weyl 1952).

“...we have, in following the ideas set out just above, to discover the invariant law of
gravitation, according to which matter determines the components Γα_βl of the
gravitational field, and which replaces the Newtonian law of attraction in Einstein’s
Theory.” (Weyl 1952).

“Thus the equations of the gravitational field also contain the equations for the matter
(material particles and electromagnetic fields) which produces this field.” (Landau &
Lifshitz 1951).

“Clearly, the mass density, or equivalently, energy density ρ(x, t) must play the role as a
source. However, it is the 00 component of a tensor T_uv(x), the mass-energy-momentum
distribution of matter. So, this tensor must act as the source of the gravitational field.”
(Hooft 2009).

“In general relativity, the stress-energy or energy-momentum tensor T_ab acts as the
source of the gravitational field. It is related to the Einstein tensor and hence to the
curvature of space time via the Einstein equation.” (McMahon 2006).

According to Newton’s laws the ‘natural’ trajectory of a particle which is not being acted
upon by any external force is a straight line. In general theory of relativity, since gravity
manifests itself as spacetime curvature, these ‘natural’ straight line trajectories generalize
to curved paths known as geodesics. These are defined physically as the trajectories
followed by freely falling particles, i.e., particles which are not being acted upon by any
non-gravitational external force. Geodesics [1] are defined mathematically as spacetime
curves that parallel transport their own tangent vectors.

A question that often arises in gravitational theory is what happens to the geometry
of space when there is a jump discontinuity in the energy-momentum
tensor along a surface. For example, what is the connection between the
curvature properties for the interior Schwarzschild solution and the exterior
Schwarzschild solution? Here, along the boundary of some surface, the energy
density experiences a jump discontinuity. Another case is for example
a shock wave propagating outwards from an exploding star. For such shock
waves the density can be infinite.
To investigate these problems, W. Israel [Isr66] developed a mathematical
framework which is called Israel’s formalism.

**** MEANINGFUL SHIT, ISN'T IT? HOW COME NOT TO CONVERT TO THIS CULT?

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>
>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>> You've just done it again.
>
> And I will do it many, many times more

No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
interest for historians looking for information on fools
and cranks.

Python <python@example.invalid> wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
>>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
>>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
>>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
>>> You've just done it again.
>>
>> And I will do it many, many times more
>
> No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> interest for historians looking for information on fools
> and cranks.
>

That won’t happen either.

There have been many cranks on this group over the years, and most are gone
or dead. Who has looked up these people and what they had to say? Anyone?
Was it worth them saying it then?

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

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Python <pyt...@example.invalid> wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:34:08 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 21:22:09 UTC+1, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> Being a mumbling moron is no tactic.
> >>>>> If it "is no tactic", why are acting like one? Maybe because
> >>>>> you ARE one, Maciej.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
> >>>> by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >>> You've just done it again.
> >>
> >> And I will do it many, many times more
> >
> > No doubt about that. Fortunately soon you'll die and all
> > the nonsense you've been posting will only be of some
> > interest for historians looking for information on fools
> > and cranks.
> >
> That won’t happen either.
>
> There have been many cranks on this group over the years, and most are gone
> or dead. Who has looked up these people and what they had to say? Anyone?
> Was it worth them saying it then?
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I do that, either for living or dead people, showing some respect for the last (fucking faggot Phyton).

I read everything, and I don't care their current biological status. Idiocy can be detected without that knowledge.

For instance, I read vin Muuurtel posts and I don't know if he's alive or dead and commissioned an stupid non-AI bot
to reply to any post against his fucking gay pagan god, Einstein.

Probably the same non-AI bot that's policing Wikipedia reposting what was changed, time and time again.

Nice way for vin Muuurtel to transcend time, perpetuating him as an idiot and the champion of the assholes.

You too, Paudkin. I'm starting to be suspicious with a repetition pattern along your 5,000 posts/year. Maybe you're a fucking bot too.

On Sunday, 16 January 2022 at 22:44:05 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)
> >> [snip ross rant]
> >>
> >>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> >>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
> >>>
> >>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
> >>>
> >>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to meddle with you, Ross.
> >>
> >> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >>
> >
> > Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
> > to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not physicists, but
> > that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is why
> > engineers understand it better than physicists.”
> >
> > Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
> > asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping that
> > explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
> > ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
> >
> > Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
> > and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not going to
> > take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
> > better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
> > explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
> >
> Totally nailed that :-)

In the dreams a fanatic idiot is a real kickass.