The Stupidity of Einstein's Relativity...Chapter Four.

[PD]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:53:36 -0800 (PST), harald

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), harald

But I bet that you don't have a clue what he meant with
that.

I'll bet he didn't either.

While I understand it perfectly well. :)

Why can't you answer any of my questions?

I answered your questions; however that is not enough! Like most
people here, I cannot make you understand it. Maybe one day you'll
start thinking, and then understand the answers.

What do you actually mean when you claim that the period of an
oscillator contains less time at the top of a mountain?

Harald

And when would that be?

If that is not what you claim, then please tell us what is.
Why does the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks
than
the
bottom one?

This is where Ralph asks for a thoughtful explanation, which he
possibly earnestly wants, but in response to which he will tell you
"utter crap".
============================================
Why would the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks
than
the
bottom one, you stupid fucked-up duck with the utter crap response?

Well, since you asked so nicely .... no.
=================================================
The answer to time dilation is "no", is it, you stupid fucked-up duck with
the utterly ridiculous response?
Why would the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks than
the bottom one, you stupid fucked-up duck?

No, that's not the answer to time dilation.
=================================
Well, since you replied so stupidly,  you stupid fucked-up deranged duck
with the utterly ridiculous response, the answer to time dilation is "there
is none".

Well, that's just like you, Androcles, to ignore what is told you and
to claim something else was said, even though what was said is right
there on the record for anyone to look at. Neither you nor Ralph could
scrape up a teaspoon of personal dignity between you.

"Requests for *proof* will be routinely ignored in science because theories
are not proven in science."-- Mallard.

[Henry Wilson DSc]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 03:53:36 -0800 (PST), harald

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 02:38:53 -0800 (PST), harald

But I bet that you don't have a clue what he meant with
that.

I'll bet he didn't either.

While I understand it perfectly well. :)

Why can't you answer any of my questions?

I answered your questions; however that is not enough! Like most
people here, I cannot make you understand it. Maybe one day you'll
start thinking, and then understand the answers.

What do you actually mean when you claim that the period of an
oscillator contains less time at the top of a mountain?

Harald

And when would that be?

If that is not what you claim, then please tell us what is.
Why does the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks
than
the
bottom one?

This is where Ralph asks for a thoughtful explanation, which he
possibly earnestly wants, but in response to which he will tell you
"utter crap".
============================================
Why would the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks
than
the
bottom one, you stupid fucked-up duck with the utter crap response?

Well, since you asked so nicely .... no.
=================================================
The answer to time dilation is "no", is it, you stupid fucked-up duck with
the utterly ridiculous response?
Why would the counter at the top of the mountain register more ticks than
the bottom one, you stupid fucked-up duck?

No, that's not the answer to time dilation.
=================================
Well, since you replied so stupidly, you stupid fucked-up deranged duck
with the utterly ridiculous response, the answer to time dilation is "there
is none".
"Requests for *proof* will be routinely ignored in science because theories
are not proven in science."-- Mallard.

The useless prick is still arguing even though he hasn't the faintest idea
about how to answer the question.

Henry Wilson...

.......SR = TEL