Re: Where am I ?

<tdp1001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132886439.500074.9330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Old Man wrote:
>> "hanson" <hanson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:9Nkhf.42944$Nx2.35560@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:5yjhf.570211$x96.266813@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>>"Physitrex @sympatico.ca>" <physitrex<remove> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:wHXgf.21446$gK4.505741@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>>>If everything is relative, ....
>> >>> "Old Man" <nomail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >>> news:kLqdnUDqQewxgBjenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >>> In other words, the mass of an atom its' frequency spectrum.
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom Potter
>> >>
>> > [Sam]
>> >> Oh no, Potter, your stooopidity is showing again!
>> >>
>> > [hanson]
>> > But, Sam, maybe Tom is an absolute satirist and
>> > what you perceive as stooopidity is just relative.
>>
>> Stupidity is relative. Ignorance is absolute. No matter how
>> you look at it, Potter is invariably stupid.
>>
>> [Old Man]
>
> It is interesting to see that [Old Man], like Sam Wormley,
> was unable to comprehend that the last sentence
> should have read:
> "In other words, the mass of an atom AFFECTS its' frequency spectrum."
>
> rather than:
> "In other words, the mass of an atom its' frequency spectrum."
>
> I dare say that this was clear to astute readers
> as the previous sentence read:
>
> "fsc" ( The fine structure constant ) is not absolute,
> but varies slightly in hydrogen-like atoms."

The statement isn't true to theory or to observation. At
best, it depends upon an unstated, cockeyed definition
of fsc. Being to stupid to originate such deception,
Potter is the willing dupe of charlatans.

[Old Man]

> Tom Potter


.

Quantcast