"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"

Wow, two cranks trying to school each other. Too bad neither seems capable of being learning, including anything worth trying to teach.
 
Yes, I know, all you can resort to is a petty criticism of typos. That you feel you need to appeal to ridicule as well is just pathetic.

Oh well, I guess you have to convince yourself that you can find some victory, no matter how shallow, somewhere.
 
Syne said:
Yes, I know, all you can resort to is a petty criticism of typos. That you feel you need to appeal to ridicule as well is just pathetic.

Oh well, I guess you have to convince yourself that you can find some victory, no matter how shallow, somewhere.
Click to expand...

You've proven yourself most worthy of the title "hypocrite." Everybody is minding their own business having a productive conversation about science, and you come along and post some proverbial garbage.

Did you enroll in ESL yet?

Edit: Will you have to ride the short bus if you do enroll?

Hey Syne, I think I remember you based on your idiocy, from many years ago. It's kind of like stepping in dog crap once again, just my honest opinion of course.
 
You only delude yourself into thinking you are having a "productive conversation about science". There is no actually science discussion going on between you and RJ. And apparently you do not know what "hypocrite" means either.

And I only joined this forum last year, so I have no idea who you may be thinking of, but it cannot be me. Just more justifications for your pettiness.
 
Syne said:
You only delude yourself into thinking you are having a "productive conversation about science".
Click to expand...

The only delusion here is you thinking you are the creator of my opinion.



Syne said:
There is no actually science discussion going on between you and RJ.
Click to expand...

Then clearly you have a different definition of the terms "science discussion" because it is clearly evident that we are discussing science, as the normal definitions of those terms apply! If we were discussing science, and you say we were not, then what you call science is probably paranoid schizophrenic delusions that occur in one's brain when they are not functioning properly. In other words, your brain is malfunctioning and you can't think straight, so you have no business making statements and representing them as truths. Please specifically clarify when you are going to speak and represent the truth, as this will be less effort on your part than having to state over and over and over that you are going to talk nonsense once again.

...I'm not exactly sure what the term "crank" means, but from listening to some very respected people here on this site, I gather from context that you fit into that category with all of the others that are labeled "cranks." Why? Because you fail to understand the truth, you then speak untruths as if they are truth itself, and then when told that you are speaking nonsense, you deny it. Go ahead, deny once again that you are a crank. Admitting you are one is the first step to recovery.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
Then clearly you have a different definition of the terms "science discussion" because it is clearly evident that we are discussing science, as the normal definitions of those terms apply! If we were discussing science, and you say we were not, then what you call science is probably paranoid schizophrenic delusions that occur in one's brain when they are not functioning properly. In other words, your brain is malfunctioning and you can't think straight, so you have no business making statements and representing them as truths. Please specifically clarify when you are going to speak and represent the truth, as this will be less effort on your part than having to state over and over and over that you are going to talk nonsense once again.
Click to expand...

You are talking about science, but you are not discussing actual science any more than a discussion of science fiction is a conversation about actual, valid science. Just because you drop science buzz words does not mean that you are using those terms properly or that you understand them enough to be discussing any real aspect of science.

And all of your desperate ad hominems are a useless distraction.
 
Syne said:
You are talking about science...[snip]
Click to expand...

I know, that's what I said, that we were talking about science. You speak of the term "actual science." I'll give one example and you tell me if it's "actual science" or not, k?

I hereby proclaim that all objects have a magical attraction property to them that enables these objects to be physically attracted to one another.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I know, that's what I said, that we were talking about science. You speak of the term "actual science." I'll give one example and you tell me if it's "actual science" or not, k?

I hereby proclaim that all objects have a magical attraction property to them that enables these objects to be physically attracted to one another.
Click to expand...
I question your use of the word "all". Are you certain it is "all"?
 
Robittybob1 said:
I question your use of the word "all". Are you certain it is "all"?
Click to expand...

Actual science or not?

Edit: I've noticed a common theme since I've been online on forums for the past years, and that is that when people don't know what position I am advocating, and I just ask questions, they don't like to answer them. That is a telltale sign they are not interested in the truth, but only interested in defending their position. If they are debating with me, and they don't know my position on a matter, and I ask a question, they lockup, because they aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in defending their opinion.
 
Just bear in mind that when talking to Motor Daddy, you're not talking about science, you're talking about uneducated nonsense.
 
AlexG said:
Just bear in mind that when talking to Motor Daddy, you're not talking about science, you're talking about uneducated nonsense.
Click to expand...

If I went back through your posts of the past years that you have contributed to threads I've been in, your contributions of value amount to the sum total ZERO!
 
Motor Daddy said:
If I went back through your posts of the past years that you have contributed to threads I've been in, your contributions of value amount to the sum total ZERO!
Click to expand...

I find any judgement of your's to be less than useless. I wouldn't trust you to change the oil in my car.
 
Just more diversionary nonsense, designed to conceal the fact that you know nothing about science in general and physics in particular.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I know, that's what I said, that we were talking about science. You speak of the term "actual science." I'll give one example and you tell me if it's "actual science" or not, k?

I hereby proclaim that all objects have a magical attraction property to them that enables these objects to be physically attracted to one another.
Click to expand...

Define your terms. What are "objects", "magical", "attraction", etc.? I take it that you are naively trying to ridicule gravity, and insofar as you may be refuting it, you are definitely not talking about actual science, just your deluded misgivings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top