In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).
What will be its coordinates in R' (here the transamerican road 66)?
Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
The same event is repeated, and a scientist placed by chance on the road
notices it. He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).

v=0.8c.

What will be the coordinates of these two events in R'?

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
> driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).
> What will be its coordinates in R' (here the transamerican road 66)?
> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
> The same event is repeated, and a scientist placed by chance on the road
> notices it. He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9). v=0.8c.
> What will be the coordinates of these two events in R'?

so true. But I strongly start believing that it's merely about the
*repetitiveness* of the time keeping instrument. Here a clock. At large
interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant. At atomic scale
repetitiveness, the relativity steps in. I'm wonder any Einstine ever was
thinking about it.

actually it makes sense. At quantum level macro scale logic doesn't
apply. Nor at relativity level. Here you have the repetitiveness linking
quantum to macro, by relativity.

On 1/30/2022 2:13 PM, Edrick Balko wrote:
> At large
> interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.

WTF is "At large interval clockness" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Post
in English, or at least in Russian or Serbian, not gibberish.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 1/30/2022 2:13 PM, Edrick Balko wrote:
>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.
>
> WTF is "At large interval clockness" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Post
> in English, or at least in Russian or Serbian, not gibberish.

fucking idiot, uneducated like shit, not knowing the language develops,
to emphasise a transition. You must be Doreen Pfaffenbach.

On 1/30/2022 6:36 PM, Edrick Balko wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2022 2:13 PM, Edrick Balko wrote:
>>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.
>>
>> WTF is "At large interval clockness" supposed to mean, nymshifter? Post
>> in English, or at least in Russian or Serbian, not gibberish.
>
> fucking idiot, uneducated like shit, not knowing the language develops,
> to emphasise a transition. You must be Doreen Pfaffenbach.

No, nymshifter, while languages do evolve, they don't by having one of
Putin's minions with a poor grasp of English coming up with a bizarre
absurdity like "At large interval clockness". Not when nobody knows what
you were even trying to say.

Back to the Kremlin with you, for a beating and you have to retake that
"Introduction to the English Language" class.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
> driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).

This event is (aside from your misconception) ill-defined: it is unclear
what the coordinates mean. There are different conventions as to the
position of the temporal coordinate in a four-vector, for example.

> What will be its coordinates in R' (here the transamerican road 66)?

Impossible to say at this point.

> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
> The same event is repeated,

It is NOT. Because it is NOT the same event: An event in relativistic
physics is a point in spacetime, not something that is “done” (e.g.
“repeated”), “happening” or ”observed”. As time has passed, it is a point
with a different temporal coordinate than before, so a _different_ event.

> and a scientist placed by chance on the road notices it.

Events are not happening, so they are not “noticed” either.

> He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).

Interpreting your wrong description as the definition of two actual time-
only-separated events, that would mean that the fourth coordinate is the
temporal coordinate:

t
^
:
0 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--> x
: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
−2 +
:
−4 +
:
−6 +
:
−8 +
: + E2
−10 +
:
−12 +
:
−14 +
: + E
−16 +
:

(I hope you can see that these are *different* points in spacetime,
so *different* events.)

Then
> v=0.8c.

as you have been told ad nauseam, you must use the Lorentz transformation:
> What will be the coordinates of these two events in R'?

(See, this wording makes clear that an event is a point with coordinates.
You cannot have it both ways.)

x' = γ (x + v t)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = γ (t + v/c² x).

[Note that if R is “sliding on the x'-axis of frame R'“ at v = 0.8 c
it means that R' is actually moving to R’s left (negative x-direction).
So the minus sign in the standard transformation equations becomes a
plus sign even though the transformation is still from R to R'.]

You must perform the transformation twice, *separately* for each of the two
events.

The correct spelling is “coordinates”, not “coordonates”.

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 31/01/2022 à 09:49, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
>> driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).

E=(x,y,z,t)

>> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
>> The same event is repeated,

>> He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).
>
> Interpreting your wrong description as the definition of two actual time-
> only-separated events, that would mean that the fourth coordinate is the
> temporal coordinate:
>
> t
> ^
> :
> 0 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--> x
> : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
> −2 +
> :
> −4 +
> :
> −6 +
> :
> −8 +
> : + E2
> −10 +
> :
> −12 +
> :
> −14 +
> : + E
> −16 +
> :

Yes.

Superbe dessin!

> Then
>
>> v=0.8c.
>
> as you have been told ad nauseam, you must use the Lorentz transformation:

This is what I ask you to do and what you almost never do. I have long
understood that relativities mastered their equations and explanations
well. But they were terrified when it came to moving to digital
applications.

What about E', and E2'?

Can you answer me.

If you can't answer, say so.

There is a Chinese proverb that says "It is better to look stupid in front
of Richard Hachel for five minutes, than to remain so all your life in
front of everyone".
> PointedEars

R.H.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.
>>>
>>> WTF is "At large interval clockness" supposed to mean, nymshifter?
>>> Post in English, or at least in Russian or Serbian, not gibberish.
>>
>> fucking idiot, uneducated like shit, not knowing the language develops,
>> to emphasise a transition. You must be Doreen Pfaffenbach.
>
> No, nymshifter, while languages do evolve, they don't by having one of
> Putin's minions with a poor grasp of English coming up with a bizarre
> absurdity like "At large interval clockness". Not when nobody knows what
> you were even trying to say.

Put the entire phrase, morony, and the context. Can't you read?

>>>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.

"clockness" here is the clocking drive, which may NOT imply a clock. You
braindead idiot. You may indeed be Doreen Pfaffenbach. You don't know how
languages develops in physics.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 31/01/2022 à 09:49, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
>>> driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).
>
> E=(x,y,z,t)

I figured.

>>> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
>>> The same event is repeated,
>>>
>>> He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).
>>
>> Interpreting your wrong description as the definition of two actual time-
>> only-separated events, that would mean that the fourth coordinate is the
>> temporal coordinate:
>>
>> t
>> ^
>> :
>> 0 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--> x
>> : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
>> −2 +
>> :
>> −4 +
>> :
>> −6 +
>> :
>> −8 +
>> : + E2
>> −10 +
>> :
>> −12 +
>> :
>> −14 +
>> : + E
>> −16 +
>> :
>
> Yes.
>
> Superbe dessin!

Thank you.

>> Then
>>
>>> v=0.8c.
>>
>> as you have been told ad nauseam, you must use the Lorentz
>> transformation:
>
> This is what I ask you to do and what you almost never do.

First of all, that is wrong.

Second, is not my job to teach you highschool-level arithmetic, especially
not here (where you are expected to be proficient in it). I gave you the
equations; all you have to do now is to shut up, substitute the values, and
calculate. If you can do that, you will (finally) have made some progress
in your understanding of special relativity.

> What about E', and E2'?
>
> Can you answer me.

That appears to be another misconception of yours.

There are *only two* events here, but they have different coordinates in
different frames of reference, i.e. when different coordinate systems are
used.

"E" ≔ e₁ ≔ (x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁) ⇔ (x₁', y₁', z₁', t₁')
"E2" ≔ e₂ ≔ (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂) ⇔ (x₂', y₂', z₂', t₂').

The Lorentz transformation merely converts coordinates of the same event
between these two coordinate systems; it does NOT create new events.

You can approach geometrically the solution that you can calculate by
considering how the coordinate axes of the frame R' must be aligned when
seen in the frame R (where the axes are perpendicular).

You will find that in this case they must be skewed such that the positive
part of the t'-axis and the positive part of the x'-axis lie between the
positive part of the t-axis and the negative part of the x-axis (i.e. in the
second quadrant), respectively. You can find the slope of the x'-axis by
considering that it is the line on which t' = 0 for all x'; solving the
equation of t' for t, and substituting t' = 0 gives you the equation for t
as a linear function of x. Similarly, the equation for the t'-axis can be
obtained as either the same linear function as for x' except with the
reciprocal slope or by considering that it is the line where x' = 0 for all
x; solving the equation of x' for t and substituting x' = 0 will give the
same result. For better scaling, multiply (as is customary, which I have
demonstrated before) in both cases both sides by c, and you get a diagram
similar to the ones that I have drawn here (in responses to your postings)
often before.

PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 02/02/2022 à 15:06, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
> Richard Hachel wrote:
>
>> Le 31/01/2022 à 09:49, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck R
>>>> driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).
>>
>> E=(x,y,z,t)
>
> I figured.
>
>>>> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
>>>> The same event is repeated,
>>>>
>>>> He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).

E2 is a second event.
Its particularity is that it takes place in the same place in R.

>>>
>>> Interpreting your wrong description as the definition of two actual time-
>>> only-separated events, that would mean that the fourth coordinate is the
>>> temporal coordinate:
>>>
>>> t
>>> ^
>>> :
>>> 0 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--> x
>>> : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
>>> −2 +
>>> :
>>> −4 +
>>> :
>>> −6 +
>>> :
>>> −8 +
>>> : + E2
>>> −10 +
>>> :
>>> −12 +
>>> :
>>> −14 +
>>> : + E
>>> −16 +
>>> :
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Superbe dessin!
>
> Thank you.

Yes, nice work.
But what I don't understand is this extremely complex way of representing
things. On the computer, of course, it's even worse.
It is (for me) imperative to use a clearer and less complex presentation.
Even more true.

>
>>> Then
>>>
>>>> v=0.8c.
>>>
>>> as you have been told ad nauseam, you must use the Lorentz
>>> transformation:
>>
>> This is what I ask you to do and what you almost never do.
>
> First of all, that is wrong.
>
> Second, is not my job to teach you highschool-level arithmetic, especially
> not here (where you are expected to be proficient in it). I gave you the
> equations; all you have to do now is to shut up, substitute the values, and
> calculate. If you can do that, you will (finally) have made some progress
> in your understanding of special relativity.
>
>> What about E', and E2'?

E' is E in R'. E2' is E2 in R'.
>>
>> Can you answer me.
>
> That appears to be another misconception of yours.
>
> There are *only two* events here, but they have different coordinates in
> different frames of reference, i.e. when different coordinate systems are
> used.
>
> "E" ≔ e₁ ≔ (x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁) ⇔ (x₁', y₁', z₁', t₁')
> "E2" ≔ e₂ ≔ (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂) ⇔ (x₂', y₂', z₂', t₂').

Yes.

That's what I'm asking you to do, and I see (but it's not your fault) the
enormous difficulty relativists have in answering me when I ask questions
like that.
What's really sad is that they don't ask themselves the question of why
it's so complicated for them, and so easy for me, and why we don't adopt
my way of writing things instead. , much simpler and much truer.
As Professor Raoult says: "There is a religion in all this, people act
like religious people. They believe in things that are not all false, of
course, but they refuse to question their dogmas, and there, it is no
longer science, it has become religion".

> The Lorentz transformation merely converts coordinates of the same event
> between these two coordinate systems; it does NOT create new events.

Yes. Its the same in other trame.
>
> You can approach geometrically the solution that you can calculate by
> considering how the coordinate axes of the frame R' must be aligned when
> seen in the frame R (where the axes are perpendicular).
>
> You will find that in this case they must be skewed such that the positive
> part of the t'-axis and the positive part of the x'-axis lie between the
> positive part of the t-axis and the negative part of the x-axis (i.e. in the
> second quadrant), respectively. You can find the slope of the x'-axis by
> considering that it is the line on which t' = 0 for all x'; solving the
> equation of t' for t, and substituting t' = 0 gives you the equation for t
> as a linear function of x. Similarly, the equation for the t'-axis can be
> obtained as either the same linear function as for x' except with the
> reciprocal slope or by considering that it is the line where x' = 0 for all
> x; solving the equation of x' for t and substituting x' = 0 will give the
> same result. For better scaling, multiply (as is customary, which I have
> demonstrated before) in both cases both sides by c, and you get a diagram
> similar to the ones that I have drawn here (in responses to your postings)
> often before.

Well.

Do not reply to this post, but rather to the post I put this morning. I
placed five events E1,E2,E3,E4,E5 in an R repository (little girl by the
side of a road). I translated (v=0.8c) the coordinates in R' by the
Lorentz transformations as they should be applied.
In the example, which is very simple, everything happens for the two
observers at the moment when they cross at OO'.
I'll make a diagram later.
I would like you to study this, and give your approval. There aren't many
people who are able to get your level here, maybe five or six.
There are a lot of cranks or worse, people who are not cranks, but firmly
believe they have it all figured out without understanding anything
positive.
Then I will give the necessary transformations for t different from 0.
But it's very important, if you want to continue positively, that you
understand what I'm saying, and why I'm saying it, and then accept the
validity.

> PointedEars

R.H.

On 1/31/2022 3:02 PM, Bruno Gody wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>>>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> WTF is "At large interval clockness" supposed to mean, nymshifter?
>>>> Post in English, or at least in Russian or Serbian, not gibberish.
>>>
>>> fucking idiot, uneducated like shit, not knowing the language develops,
>>> to emphasise a transition. You must be Doreen Pfaffenbach.
>>
>> No, nymshifter, while languages do evolve, they don't by having one of
>> Putin's minions with a poor grasp of English coming up with a bizarre
>> absurdity like "At large interval clockness". Not when nobody knows what
>> you were even trying to say.
>
> Put the entire phrase, morony, and the context. Can't you read?

It doesn't parse in English, nymshifter.

The -ness suffix in English makes a noun (describing a property) from an
adjective. "Clock" is not an adjective. I can say "my cat is large" or
"my cat is black" then discuss the largeness or blackness of my cat.
Saying "my cat is clock" makes no sense, and "clockness" makes no sense.
>>>>> At large interval clockness, the relativity gets irrelevant.

That first phrase doesn't parse either, even if a real "-ness" word is
used instead of your made-up word.
>
> "clockness" here is the clocking drive, which may NOT imply a clock. You
> braindead idiot. You may indeed be Doreen Pfaffenbach. You don't know how
> languages develops in physics.

If you took an "English for brain-damaged Serbians" class, demand your
money back.
If you paid for a Serbian-English dictionary, demand a refund.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> "clockness" here is the clocking drive, which may NOT imply a clock.
>> You braindead idiot. You may indeed be Doreen Pfaffenbach. You don't
>> know how languages develops in physics.
>
> If you took an "English for brain-damaged Serbians" class, demand your
> money back.
> If you paid for a Serbian-English dictionary, demand a refund.

he rather does your mother in she ass, pay nothing, but you may take
picture, stupid morony. We understand now you are educate like shit,
demanding pages of explanation on what a simple word "clockness" stands
for. Piss off, you fucking idiot. Your country is a shithole, 200
millions under the poverty level, 50 millions homeless with no address.
You are fucked already.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/02/2022 à 15:06, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Le 31/01/2022 à 09:49, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>>>> Richard Hachel wrote:
>>>>> In a frame R, sliding on the x' axis of a frame R' for example a truck
>>>>> R driving on a road R', we observe an event E=(12,9,0,-15).
>>>
>>> E=(x,y,z,t)
>>
>> I figured.
^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> Six time units later, deltaT=6, boom!
>>>>> The same event is repeated,
>>>>>
>>>>> He notes E2=(12,9,0,-9).
>
> E2 is a second event.
> Its particularity is that it takes place in the same place in R.

I know, see above.

>>>>
>>>> Interpreting your wrong description as the definition of two actual
>>>> time- only-separated events, that would mean that the fourth coordinate
>>>> is the temporal coordinate:
>>>>
>>>> [Minkowski diagram]
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Superbe dessin!
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> Yes, nice work.
> But what I don't understand is this extremely complex way of representing
> things. On the computer, of course, it's even worse.

No, it is rather easy. In ASCII art it is more difficult to draw than with
plotting software, of course.

> It is (for me) imperative to use a clearer and less complex presentation.
> Even more true.

I do not see how it could be clearer and less complex than with a Minkowski
diagram. You just have to learn once how to read it. Put simply, the
future is on the top and the past on the bottom.

>>>> Then
>>>>
>>>>> v=0.8c.
>>>>
>>>> as you have been told ad nauseam, you must use the Lorentz
>>>> transformation:
>>>
>>> This is what I ask you to do and what you almost never do.
>>
>> First of all, that is wrong.
>>
>> Second, is not my job to teach you highschool-level arithmetic,
>> especially not here (where you are expected to be proficient in it).
>> I gave you the equations; all you have to do now is to shut up,
>> substitute the values, and calculate. If you can do that, you will
>> (finally) have made some progress in your understanding of special
>> relativity.

So you can’t and you haven’t.

>>> What about E', and E2'?
>
> E' is E in R'. E2' is E2 in R'.

But those are the *same* events. Only the coordinates are different in the
other frame. So there is actually no need to introduce new symbols for
them.

>>>
>>> Can you answer me.
>>
>> That appears to be another misconception of yours.
>>
>> There are *only two* events here, but they have different coordinates in
>> different frames of reference, i.e. when different coordinate systems are
>> used.
>>
>> "E" ≔ e₁ ≔ (x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁) ⇔ (x₁', y₁', z₁', t₁')
>> "E2" ≔ e₂ ≔ (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂) ⇔ (x₂', y₂', z₂', t₂').
>
> Yes.
>
> That's what I'm asking you to do, and I see (but it's not your fault) the
> enormous difficulty relativists have in answering me when I ask questions
> like that.

Oh for crying out loud. Again, the Lorentz transformation in this case
(which I already gave you):

x' = γ (x + v t)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = γ (t + v/c² x)

with

γ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²).

So:

γ(0.8 c) = 1/√[1 − 0.8²] = 1/√(1 − 0.64) = 1/√(0.36) = 1/(0.6) = 1/(3/5)
= 5/3.

Now extract the coordinates of the events:

x₁ = 12
y₁ = 9
z₁ = 0
t₁ = −15

x₂ = 12
y₂ = 9
z₂ = 0
t₂ = −9.

Since v is given in units of c, but x, y, z, and t are given without units
(i.e. in units of 1), x, y, and z are actually given in units of c · 1 = c.
Then substitute and calculate:

x₁' = γ (x₁ + v t₁)
= γ x₁ + γ v t₁
= 5/3 · 12 + 5/3 · 4/5 · (−15)
= 5 · 4 − 4/3 · 15
= 20 − 4 · 5
= 20 − 20
= 0,
y₁' = y₁ = 0,
z₁' = z₁ = 9,
t₁' = γ (t₁ + v/c² x₁)
= γ t₁ + γ v/c² x₁
= 5/3 · (−15) + 5/3 · 4/5 · 12
= 5 · (−5) + 4/3 · 12
= −25 + 16
= −9.

x₂' = γ (x₂ + v t₂)
= γ x₂ + γ v t₂
= 5/3 · 12 + 5/3 · 4/5 · (−9)
= 20 − 4/3 · 9
= 20 − 12
= 8
y₂' = y₂ = 0,
z₂' = z₂ = 9
t₂' = γ (t₂ + v/c² x₂)
= γ t₂ + γ v/c² x₂
= 5/3 · (−9) + 16
= 5 · (−3) + 16
= −15 + 16
= 1.

In summary:

e₁ ≔ (x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁) = (12, 0, 9, −15)
⇔ (x₁', y₁', z₁', t₁') = ( 0, 0, 9, −9)
e₂ ≔ (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂) = (12, 0, 9, −9)
⇔ (x₂', y₂', z₂', t₂') = ( 8, 0, 9, 1).

Was that really so hard?

The geometric solution:

<https://www.geogebra.org/graphing/qkskvrfv>

You can play with the x'_offset (x' position) and t'_offset (line of
simultaneity in R') sliders to see that these calculated coordinates of the
events in the frame R' are the correct ones.

You can even play with the β slider to see how the skewing of the x' and t'
axes of R' changes as the relative speed of R does.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Le 02/02/2022 à 22:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :

>
> x' = γ (x + v t)
> y' = y
> z' = z
> t' = γ (t + v/c² x)

No.

E=(x,y,z,t₀,t)
with t₀ (local time) and t (when O perceives E).

x' = γ (x - v t₀)
y' = y
z' = z
t₀' = γ (t₀ - vx/c²)
t'= t₀'+ √(x'²+y'²+z'²)/c

x₁ = 12
y₁ = 9
z₁ = 0
t₀₁ = −15
t = 0
x₂ = 12
y₂ = 9
z₂ = 0
t₀₂ = −9
t₂ = 6

x₁' = 40
y₁' = y₁ = 9
z₁' = z₁ = 0
t₀₁' = -41
t₁' = 0

x₂' = 36
y₂' = y₂ = 9
z₂' = z₂ = 0
t₀₂' = -31
t₂' = 2.2415

> PointedEars

R.H.

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/02/2022 à 22:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> x' = γ (x + v t)
>> y' = y
>> z' = z
>> t' = γ (t + v/c² x)
>
> No.
>
> E=(x,y,z,t₀,t)

You are even denying YOUR OWN definitions of the events now.
You are are a lost cause.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Richard Hachel wrote:

> Le 02/02/2022 à 22:27, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a écrit :
>> x' = γ (x + v t)
>> y' = y
>> z' = z
>> t' = γ (t + v/c² x)
>
> No.
>
> E=(x,y,z,t₀,t)

You are even denying YOUR OWN definitions of the events now.
You are a lost cause.

PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Michael Moroney wrote:

> The -ness suffix in English makes a noun (describing a property) from an
> adjective. "Clock" is not an adjective. I can say "my cat is large" or
> "my cat is black" then discuss the largeness or blackness of my cat.
> Saying "my cat is clock" makes no sense, and "clockness" makes no sense.

You don't understand engilsh, I can see. It's not about cats, but even
cats are driven by clocknesscity. Never mind, now go fight destructive
wars in your own country, not again in the middle of Europe. You always
fight wars in other countries.