"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1137690052.887603.286910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hexenmeister wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137679858.939974.257280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > rbwinn3@juno.com wrote:
>> >> Speed of light won't solve the problem.  You have to use velocity of
>> >> light.  Einstein said that velocity of light was a constant.
>> >
>> > You're *quite* sure he was referring to the vector quantity and not the
>> > scalar magnitude?
>>
>> Of course, abject moron, because he says:
>>
>> "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ zum Anfangspunkt von k im
>> ruhenden System gemessen mit der Geschwindigkeit V - v.."
>>
>> Which translates to:
>>
>>  "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
>> when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
>>
>> I never heared of anyone subtracting scalars alone, anencephalous cretin.
>
> This is characteristic of your reading of just about any scientific
> paper, I take it.

You can "take" it anyway you want to, moron. The fact remains that
RBWinn knows more than you ever will. Go have your private email
with Hallucinatory Roberts, he's as crazy as you. He's observed
accretion disks near black holes.

>
>>
>> > You do realize, don't you that this would mean that light could emerge
>> > from a light bulb in only one direction and not in all directions?
>>
>>
>> That's right, dumbest idiot. Einstein thinks that light emerges
>> from a light bulb in only one direction and not in all directions.
>> So do you, phuckwit duck. The rest of the world knows differently.
>
> And this is characteristic of the depth of your critique of modern
> physics, I take it.

You can "take" it anyway you want to, cretin. The fact remains that
RBWinn knows more than you ever will, and Einstein refers to velocity
in one part of his paper and speed in another because he was to
stupid to know the difference.
You are the dumb cunt that claimed light could emerge from a light
bulb in only one direction and not in all directions, which is your
idea of "modern physics". It requires no depth to critique that,
emprical evidence shows you to be a moron.

>
>>
>> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
>>   than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
>>   that.
>> The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
>>   someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
>>   straight, and then make progress from there.
>>
>> RBWinn, welder, thinks more clearly than you, arsehole.
>> You are a fucking troll, Phuckwit Duck. A cunt of the first magnitude.
>> Yes, Winn is QUITE CERTAIN, arsewipe.
>
> Yes, that's what I was afraid of, ducky.

Then do something about your phobia, your religious-like convictions
and your psychosis too.
Focus on *exactly* what is wrong in YOUR thinking.
See a psychiatrist, you've lost your argument and are reduced to
a plethora of inane comments.

Hexenmeister.