Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:40:08 GMT
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156167011.577766.325280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > news:kcknr3-7pf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | In sci.physics, cnctut
| > | <cnctutwiler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | wrote
| > | on 20 Aug 2006 18:17:54 -0700
| > | <1156123074.900193.209240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
| > | > Androcles:
| > | >
| > | > I did scan two translations of his papers--and did find something
| > | > similiar to your equation 2AB/(t'A-tA). Perhaps the translation
| > | > equation and yours are the same--there appeared to be some
difference
| > | > though.
| > |
| > | Androcles is on record (I'd have to find it) that the
| > | equation should actually be
| > |
| > | (AB+BA)/(t'A-tA)
| > |
| > | which in his mind evalutes to 0/0. The errors in such
| > | logic are considerable but there is a minor translation
| > | issue with the term "Lichtgeschwindigkeit", which can
| > | either be translated "lightspeed" or "velocity of light".
| > | Most people take the former
| >
| > LIAR!
| > The translator took the latter, see
| > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > and MOST people take the latter. Shitheads do not count
| > as people.
| > It's bad enough that you are a prejudiced bigot, but
| > now you are a proven disgusting liar as well.
| > Androcles.
|
| Androcles, you are a liar.
Prove it.
You told me the words don't matter at all,
| only the equations.
Correct, and the equation c = 2AB/(t'A-tA) is a lie.
Now you say the translation is what's key,
LIAR, I never said "key" at all. *** off, prejudiced lying bigot.
Androcles
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: PD
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- References:
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: PD
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: PD
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: cnctut
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: cnctut
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: cnctut
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: cnctut
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: cnctut
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: The Ghost In The Machine
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- From: PD
- Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- Prev by Date: Re: Perpetual motion
- Next by Date: Re: Matter --> Energy, o.k, but Energy --> Matter ??
- Previous by thread: Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- Next by thread: Re: Are physics cranks employed?
- Index(es):
Loading