Re: cesium clock question
- From: gabydewilde <gdewilde@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 13, 12:51 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
doug wrote:
Spaceman wrote:
tadchem wrote:
<snipped the dance routine of a cheerleader of relativity>
For the last time, I was not, am not, and will not argue Relativity
with you.
Because you are clueless about how clocks work and are brainwashed
beyond help.
I get it.
No problem.
You admit you can not argue on the wrong side of an argument.
:)
My topic is your complete lack of logical arguments and
your reliance upon illogical rhetoric.
My logic has trumped each and every illogical bologna spouted
about time changing rate and the ignorance of doppler effect
perceived changes in physical measurements such as a resonance.
Very funny, it helped cheer up my day. Logic and you in one
sentence? Amazingly funny.
Poor Doug,
He is a head cheerleader of the illogical so he can not understand
logic at all!
LOL
Jep, no logics for dog.
____
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
.
- References:
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: tadchem
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: tadchem
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: tadchem
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: tadchem
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: tadchem
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: doug
- Re: cesium clock question
- From: Spaceman
- Re: cesium clock question
- Prev by Date: Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- Next by Date: Re: O.T. -- Internet Anywhere?
- Previous by thread: Re: cesium clock question
- Next by thread: Re: cesium clock question
- Index(es):