Dirk Bruere compares Marie Curie to Einstein !!!

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

The only way to understand issues honestly is to discuss them
honestly. But your fascist leftism doesn't want to, because it's
fundamentally dishonest.

That's a good one!
I'm usually accused of being a Nazi.

Perhaps there's a reason.

No, I'm saying keep your political rants out of sci.chem
And for the benefit of our readers that also applies to "Einstein
debunkers" who also infest the place and whine about his "bogus Jewish"
achievements and Nobel Prizes.

Let's see, Einstein's theories left us with nothing less than the
foundations of modern physics. Curie's theories left us with - well
wait, she didn't have any, did she? Isn't there something wrong here?

Argue it with the "Einstein Deniers".

Andrew Usher

Not, I'm comparing you to other obsessed NetNuts.
Did you know Omama is not a naturally born US citizen!

Omama? Good for him, I'm not a naturally born US citizen either.

Did you know Einstein never had an original idea in his life, and like all
Jews stole it from others!

Yeah, I knew that. He even said so.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein

And that Special Relativity is a load of shit because it goes against
Common Sense!

Well done. You are learning.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.

Did you know 9/11 was a New World Order Nazi Jewish Illuminati conspiracy!

Now you are wrong... it was a New World Order Nazi Muslim Illuminati
conspiracy.

See?

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Let's see, Einstein's theories left us with nothing less than the
foundations of modern physics. Curie's theories left us with - well
wait, she didn't have any, did she? Isn't there something wrong here?

Argue it with the "Einstein Deniers".

I don't think so.

Not, I'm comparing you to other obsessed NetNuts.

That's an ad hominem argument, even if I were a 'NetNut'.
Andrew Usher

A sure sign of NetNuttery is renaming threads after someone who disagrees
with you.

Lorentz invented length contraction to save his precious ectoplasm
theory from MMX (which by Occam's razor is simply explained by
emission fact), then nutter Einstein invented length expansion.
A sure proof of net nuttery is Einstein worship, putting Dork Brouhaha
firmly in the frame.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

[Curie's] first Nobel prize was probably OK, but her second was
ridiculous,

LOL!

You defend, please, her getting two Nobel prizes. I've never seen a
good argument for it.
Andrew Usher

Why are posts with "soc.men" always full of whining diatribes against
women? Get a fucking life (either literally or metaphorically).

I think the ACS's C&E News spends more time on the status of minority and
women chemists than the plight of today's chemical industry.

I don't see

recommend a remedial course of action.

Get a life? Stop stupid snips?

[Andrew Usher]

My name certainly isn't 'Radium', ass hole. This 'drivel' is a
reasoned contribution to thought, and yours is - ?

RADIUM. LOOK IT UP.

Yes, it's the 88th element of the periodic table. I probably know at
least as much about it as you do.

Fucking idiot. Go be loud and stupid about a subject you have at least
passing knowledge.

Apparently your subject is how to be a dick.

Andrew Usher

[Andrew Usher]

I'm not 'dumb' because I disagree on the definition of integration,
either - definitions are never wrong.

Eric's definitions can be wrong.

I do not "define" Andrew Usher to be dumb, he just happens to fit my
operating definition of "dumb".

And you operating definition is itself 'dumb'. By insulting the
intelligence of those that disagree with you, you avoid thinking about
their ideas.

Andrew Usher

[Jenny]

_________________
Eric's definitions can be wrong.

He defines observational evidence as evidence that doesn't exist.

He claims that obervational evidence doesn't exist - by DEFINTION.

From which it would follow logically that only unobserved evidence
exists..
_________________

I do not "define" Andrew Usher to be dumb, he just happens to fit my
operating definition of "dumb".

But your "definitions" are useless.

Eric, as a friend I'll tell you, your time at the U of Alaska was
wasted. You should ask for your money back. I'll write them a letter
in your support, if you like. I can give evidence that you've been
defrauded:

You don't understand simple physics.
You don't know how to read.
You don't know how to write.

They should be happy to settle out of court - if you undertake to shut
the fuck up (as you like to tell others).

I know if I were a University, I wouldn't want ex- students like you
running around waving my degrees at the world.

Just show a lawyer what you've been writing here - any lawyer would
gladly take your case.

It's a sure winner.

Then use the money to go to some other University and try learning
physics again.

Maybe it will take better next time.

Alll you have to do is read and, more importantly, *think*.

I don't think I love you any more,

Jenny

[Koobee Wublee]

Eric's definitions can be wrong.
He defines observational evidence as evidence that doesn't exist.
He claims that obervational evidence doesn't exist - by DEFINTION.

This is exactly how the self-styled physicists define reality. If
anything is not observable, then it does not exist.

The hypothesis is terribly flawed. The Einstein Dingleberries are
assuming the observation technology is in perfection. The analogy
goes for a blind person. If he cannot see a car coming towards him,
then the event certainly does not exist. Only a tragic ending will
convince these nitwits that they have been terribly wrong. <shrug>

Eric, as a friend I'll tell you, your time at the U of Alaska was
wasted. You should ask for your money back. I'll write them a letter
in your support, if you like. I can give evidence that you've been

Gisse is a college dropout. <shrug>

You don't understand simple physics.

Not to mention, the illiterate does not understand what complex
numbers are.

You don't know how to read.
You don't know how to write.

What do you expect of a college dropout? After all, the college
passing requirement has been set ridiculously low for quite some
time. <shrug>

They should be happy to settle out of court - if you undertake to shut
the fuck up (as you like to tell others).
I know if I were a University, I wouldn't want ex- students like you
running around waving my degrees at the world. [...]

But you have been out of touch for quite some time. The universities
today are only interested in graduating students with monetary
rewards. After all, the tax-payers’ grants are getting harder and
harder to come by nowadays. <shrug>

Alll you have to do is read and, more importantly, *think*.

Oh, the college dropout does read but not comprehend. <shrug>

2,500 years ago in China, there were these two philosophers debating
on what should be the best course to get the best out of one’s life.
Confucius said you must obey the authority because the authority must
be assumed to be ever so righteous. Yeah, right! The other one,
named Mozi, preaches in self discipline and perfection emphasizing on
liberty, dignity, and responsibility. Unknowingly, that philosophy
was exactly what was adapted by a regime during WWII. This country
had the worst technology before WWII, but after the war they had
propelled themselves to be the best in the world in just merely a few
short years. Unfortunately for them, due to internal treachery and
naively unprepared for war, they ended as losers.

Gisse is a Confucius follower. Whatever the text book says, he must
obey because he thinks the textbooks must always be right without any
questions asked. <shrug>

Some text books say the twins’ paradox is not a paradox but a teaching
tool of some sort. That sort of a lie is exactly the type of $hit
that adults would tell 5-year-olds to shut up.

The Confucius followers aka self-styled physicists aka Einstein
Dingleberries nowadays cannot agree on one resolution to the twins’
paradox that is because each so-called resolution contradicts with the
other. Oh, some Confucianists would hypnotize themselves into believe
GR would resolve the twins’ paradox despite lack of any mathematical
solution to do so.

Speaking of GR, none of the self-styled physicists know how the field
equations are derived. I guess it is too much to ask these who are
supposed to be the experts in that field. <shrug>

I don't think I love you any more,

You should not love anyone appearing in your life. Let along a
Confucius follower. I thought at your relatively advanced age you
should have learnt that by now. <shrug>

In the meantime, please feel free to use pages from textbooks covering
both SR and GR as toilet papers. You know this economy just might
propel you to do so.