|
|
Re: NoEinstein fails to use google
Posted:
Jun 9, 2011 9:54 PM
|
|
On Jun 8, 9:15 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
>
> "Timo Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> -- John Armistead aka NoEinstein wrote:
>
> Yesterday, Timo wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Conclusion: (a) your KE formula is wrong, or (b)
> what you say about impacts is wrong, John.
>
> <snip>
>
> Today, Timo wrote:
>
> Your KE formula is experimentally falsified, John.
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> .... ahahahaha... This is rich!... AHAHAHAHA...
> So, Timo you actually believe that by you changing
> "wrong" to "falsified" persuaded No-Einstein-John?
> LOL & ROTFLMAO... ahahaha...
> Timo, you must have missed my yesterdays post.
> Here it is for your benefit:
>
> Yesterday, hanson wrote:
>
> Timo, your professorial pedagogic talents and
> sensitivities are severely lacking.
>
> Both (a) and (b) is right in the world of John
> Armistead's New Age Science... which he
> proselytizes with the same right & justification
> as did Albert, the "Yes-Einstein", who said:
>
> |||AE||| "the velocity of light in our theory
> |||AE||| plays the part, physically, of an
> |||AE||| infinitely great velocity."
> |||AE||| No massive object can go faster then light.
>
> So, Timo, all orthodoxy aside, try to accept the
> fact that Physics is an anthropic & social enterprise.
> If it makes John Armistead happy to trumpet his own
> Weltbild, then congratulates him... for a very, very
> pragmatic reason... The John Armisteads are the
> folks whose taxes pay for the salaries of physicists.
>
> If you can't accept that, Timo, then go technical and
> explain why |||AE|||'s == Jewish shit don't stink ==
>
> Thanks for the laughs, guys, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---
Hanson: Thanks for the repeat! It's fun to hear that new and
'possibly' profound theories have the same rights to be heard as old
and 'possibly' stupid theories. Where one sides determines their
clear thinking or fouled thinking. ? NoEinstein ?
|
|
