Following the trend that started 116 years ago in the mind of an imbecile,
relativists expanded further their thoughts about space being twisted and
retorted by massive bodies to the realm of elementary math.

They are starting to sell another load of crap, this time with integer numbers.

Did you think since you was a child that 2 x 3 = 6?

WRONG! It only seems to be true, but it's not.

Actually, relativists "discovered" that integer numbers are as such ONLY AT A
DISTANCE. This couldn't be proved until recently, due to technological
advances.

Any integer number is distance sensitive to a given observer in a primed
reference system. But the actual numbers are affected by the distance
at which they are OBSERVED.

Relativists affirm that any integer n is actually represented as:

n' = n [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³] , were d: distance at which the number is observed.

In this way, relativists expect that a lot of unkown shit be explained down
there, in the atomic world.

So, remember, the news are that you have to use the relativistic version of
an integer to get the true value.

2 x 3 = 6? It depends of the distance of application.

If you doubt, you have to use:

Old 2 x Old 3 = 6 . [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³]²

Do you think that this IS STUPID, but t' = γ t IS NOT?

Make an appointment at the nearest lunatic asylum, IMBECILE!

Op 18-jan.-2022 om 22:08 schreef Richard Hertz:
> Following the trend that started 116 years ago in the mind of an imbecile,
> relativists expanded further their thoughts about space being twisted and
> retorted by massive bodies to the realm of elementary math.

Glad to see that you're so deeply, genuinely, thoroughly,
profoundly tormented by that. Leaving aside any real or
alleged merits of the resulting theory, we should be deeply,
genuinely, thoroughly, profoundly grateful to that imbecile
for, at that time, giving birth to something with such a
deep, genuine, thorough, profound effect on a number of
future twerps.
Life is beautiful :-)

Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:08:34 PM UTC-8, lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz wrote:

> Relativists affirm that any integer n is actually represented as:
>
> n' = n [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³] , were d: distance at which the number is observed.

Dick,

You need to stop lying. Make an appointment at the nearest lunatic asylum, IMBECILE!

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

> Glad to see that you're so deeply, genuinely, thoroughly,
> profoundly tormented by that. Leaving aside any real or
> alleged merits of the resulting theory, we should be deeply,
> genuinely, thoroughly, profoundly grateful to that imbecile
> for, at that time, giving birth to something with such a
> deep, genuine, thorough, profound effect on a number of
> future twerps.

Sad to read how you became so deeply, genuinely, thoroughly, profoundly, immensely, extraordinarily sample of a perfect asshole
without sense of humor.

But, being you such an immense fanatic of the cult of relativity, I couldn't expect less of a bitter relativist.

I suppose that telling a joke about your mamma is totally out of question.

The same apply with Gono, who just replied my OP taking offense for lying.

What a couple, oh my! Dumb and dumber in real life.

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 8:19:27 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

<snip>

Dork, you really moved me with your confession.

After thinking about it for many hours, I reached to one conclusion:

That you feel better and a glitch of the joy of life hit you due to my post means to me
that you're a pathetic bitter loser, waiting daily for some crumbs of thought that may lift your spirit.

Man, you need to take a break and come to Argentina for a visit. We'll teach you how to enjoy life
day and night, and will provide you with a guideline for you to came clean of the toxins of relativity
that, really, are ruining your life.

> Glad to see that you're so deeply, genuinely, thoroughly,
> profoundly tormented by that. Leaving aside any real or
> alleged merits of the resulting theory, we should be deeply,
> genuinely, thoroughly, profoundly grateful to that imbecile
> for, at that time, giving birth to something with such a
> deep, genuine, thorough, profound effect on a number of
> future twerps.
> Life is beautiful :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 6:08:34 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Following the trend that started 116 years ago in the mind of an imbecile,
> relativists expanded further their thoughts about space being twisted and
> retorted by massive bodies to the realm of elementary math.
>
> They are starting to sell another load of crap, this time with integer numbers.
>
> Did you think since you was a child that 2 x 3 = 6?
>
> WRONG! It only seems to be true, but it's not.
>
> Actually, relativists "discovered" that integer numbers are as such ONLY AT A
> DISTANCE. This couldn't be proved until recently, due to technological
> advances.
>
> Any integer number is distance sensitive to a given observer in a primed
> reference system. But the actual numbers are affected by the distance
> at which they are OBSERVED.
>
> Relativists affirm that any integer n is actually represented as:
>
> n' = n [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³] , were d: distance at which the number is observed.
>
> In this way, relativists expect that a lot of unkown shit be explained down
> there, in the atomic world.
>
> So, remember, the news are that you have to use the relativistic version of
> an integer to get the true value.
>
> 2 x 3 = 6? It depends of the distance of application.
>
> If you doubt, you have to use:
>
> Old 2 x Old 3 = 6 . [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³]²
>
> Do you think that this IS STUPID, but t' = γ t IS NOT?
>
> Make an appointment at the nearest lunatic asylum, IMBECILE!

Had any gave a thought about n' = n [1+ 1/(d/1nm)³] in the quantum world, would have realized that integers
don't have a reason to used in a field where "1" is just a probability, so it should had a function attached to it.

Radiation coming from overexcited atoms reveal patterns where single lines with zero width are just an illusion,
because electrons radiate extra-energy over a bandwidth of Khz.

But better ignore it, and adopt INTEGERS as the value of fo, ignoring the dispersion. And this happens with everything
in the quantum physics. Oversimplification using integers or fractions of integers. Irrational numbers are forbidden for a convention.

Integers don't work below 1 nm, and everyone should know this better.