Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: "Strich.9" <strich.9992@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:05:03 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 11, 12:00 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Strich.9 wrote:
Nagging and whining are not valid arguments Doggy Boy
So your nagging and whining are valid arguments?
How is the attempt to refute the experiments coming? Still
failing completely? This is just asking a question about
something you promised to do and have run away from.
More whining? Is that the only argument you know doggy boy.
So pointing out your empty boasts and complete failure to
undertand any of relativity is whining? You not only do
not understand reltativity, you do not understand english.
You said you could refute experiments. You failed. You were
lying or ignorant. Which was it?
You will make a bad wife doggy boy. You nag non stop
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- References:
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: Strich.9
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: PD
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: Strich.9
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: strich . 9991
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: strich . 9991
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: Strich.9
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: Strich.9
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- From: doug
- Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- Prev by Date: Re: "modern physics"
- Next by Date: Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- Previous by thread: Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- Next by thread: Re: twin paradox, but a symmetric one
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|