Users Online Now: 3,337 (Who's On?) Visitors Today: 2,418,326 Pageviews Today: 3,244,593 Threads Today: 737 Posts Today: 15,362 06:43 PM

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

# REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!

AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
I had no idea Darwin was an organ grinder on the side........
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

I wouldn't expect a retard like you to get a joke you hadn't ever heard before and had explained to you, even though it should be pretty easy to figure out.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

There is pretty much always relative velocity.

You need to carefully choose your frame of reference for there NOT to be relative velocity.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
I had no idea Darwin was an organ grinder on the side........
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

I wouldn't expect a retard like you to get a joke you hadn't ever heard before and had explained to you, even though it should be pretty easy to figure out.
Quoting: AA 47216577

Darwin didn't own a monkey in my reality?
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
So Tesla believed there was a mystery force behind the Mercury Precession? Well, at least he's ahead of IDW, who still thinks it is simple lensing-like effect, as if the Sun is acting like a prism while we view Mercury.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
"He left his jacket on the pedestal, beside his tiny rusted cup, and I haven't got the strength to pick them up."
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
So Tesla believed there was a mystery force behind the Mercury Precession? Well, at least he's ahead of IDW, who still thinks it is simple lensing-like effect, as if the Sun is acting like a prism while we view Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Gee wiz you are one dumb son of a bitch

You can't kick sense into someone
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
So Tesla believed there was a mystery force behind the Mercury Precession? Well, at least he's ahead of IDW, who still thinks it is simple lensing-like effect, as if the Sun is acting like a prism while we view Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Gee wiz you are one dumb son of a bitch

You can't kick sense into someone
Quoting: AA 47216577

...but with some it's lot of fun trying ;)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
So Tesla believed there was a mystery force behind the Mercury Precession? Well, at least he's ahead of IDW, who still thinks it is simple lensing-like effect, as if the Sun is acting like a prism while we view Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Gee wiz you are one dumb son of a bitch

You can't kick sense into someone
Quoting: AA 47216577

...but with some it's lot of fun trying ;)
Quoting: AA 47216577

Try as you might you can't knock the sense out of people nor knock the logic out of them.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I don't see your point. Perhaps if you remove you hat.

Only the relative velocity with the earth would vanish with it.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

At least he's attempting physics again. Sigh. I leave for work in about twenty minutes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Which is a pity because he could use parallax to cobble up a semi excuse for his trick of the light Mercury precession problem.

Can't feed this stump anything........I should know better
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I don't see your point. Perhaps if you remove you hat.

Only the relative velocity with the earth would vanish with it.
Quoting: AA 47216577

Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations
Quoting: AA 47216577

Oddest definition for parallax I've ever heard.

It's a bit like saying "Blue is a rarely used term for white light that's been damaged."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.

As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.
Quoting: AA 47216577

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations
Quoting: AA 47216577

Oh baby I hear the blues a callin

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations
Quoting: AA 47216577

Oddest definition for parallax I've ever heard.

It's a bit like saying "Blue is a rarely used term for white light that's been damaged."
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

BRILLIANT!
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax comes into play wen making visual observations. It can be a distortion of parallel lines which appear to converge at distance for instance, it it can be the different angles and different positions from different perspectives an object appears to be at. Parallax is how your brain is able to image in three dimensions. One Eye is imaging from one preservative and the other from another.

This has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on relativity whatsoever
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations
Quoting: AA 47216577

Oddest definition for parallax I've ever heard.

It's a bit like saying "Blue is a rarely used term for white light that's been damaged."
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Ten maybe this precise 'parallel" will help:

parallax
&#8194; Use Parallax in a sentence
par·al·lax
[par-uh-laks]
noun
1.
the apparent displacement of an observed object due to a change in the position of the observer.
2.
Astronomy. the apparent angular displacement of a celestial body due to its being observed from the surface instead of from the center of the earth (diurnal parallax or geocentric parallax) or due to its being observed from the earth instead of from the sun (annual parallax or heliocentric parallax) Compare parallactic ellipse.
3.
the difference between the view of an object as seen through the picture-taking lens of a camera and the view as seen through a separate viewfinder.
4.
an apparent change in the position of cross hairs as viewed through a telescope, when the focusing is imperfect.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax comes into play wen making visual observations. It can be a distortion of parallel lines which appear to converge at distance for instance, it it can be the different angles and different positions from different perspectives an object appears to be at. Parallax is how your brain is able to image in three dimensions. One Eye is imaging from one preservative and the other from another.

This has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on relativity whatsoever
Quoting: AA 47216577

AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax comes into play wen making visual observations. It can be a distortion of parallel lines which appear to converge at distance for instance, it it can be the different angles and different positions from different perspectives an object appears to be at. Parallax is how your brain is able to image in three dimensions. One Eye is imaging from one preservative and the other from another.

This has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on relativity whatsoever
Quoting: AA 47216577

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

I knew it all along, you two fucktards were the one throwing it in to a discussion about relativity. You're not fooling anyone. You're a retard , and believe me, it shows.

Parallax can't be used to explain everything
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax comes into play wen making visual observations. It can be a distortion of parallel lines which appear to converge at distance for instance, it it can be the different angles and different positions from different perspectives an object appears to be at. Parallax is how your brain is able to image in three dimensions. One Eye is imaging from one preservative and the other from another.

This has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on relativity whatsoever
Quoting: AA 47216577

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

I knew it all along, you two fucktards were the one throwing it in to a discussion about relativity. You're not fooling anyone. You're a retard , and believe me, it shows.

Parallax can't be used to explain everything

Quoting: AA 47216577

You are beyond help.......seriously

nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
09/22/2013 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 02:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
I am beyond help.......seriously

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Fixed it up for ya there , beetlebrain

A man as got to know his limitations and stay within them, otherwise he makes a persistent irritation and dangerous jackass out of himself.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 02:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

It was tho ONLY thing that he could have cobbled up an excuse for his "trick of the light" explanation for the precession anomaly.

OH WELL that jackassogen is detrimental to mental function......even cracked mental functioning
AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Parallax does not belong in this conversation at all, unless of course if you want to bring up the fact that mainstream disinformation ops are fond of using it to explain away nearly every anomalous observation ever made.

That's why fucktard threw it out there like a dead carp
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 03:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

Parallax does not belong in this conversation at all, unless of course if you want to bring up the fact that mainstream disinformation ops are fond of using it to explain away nearly every anomalous observation ever made.

That's why fucktard threw it out there like a dead carp
Quoting: AA 47216577

AA
User ID: 47216577
United States
09/22/2013 03:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

It was tho ONLY thing that he could have cobbled up an excuse for his "trick of the light" explanation for the precession anomaly.

OH WELL that jackassogen is detrimental to mental function......even cracked mental functioning
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax no doubt does play a role in the observational anomaly albeit a very tiny one, but given the proximity to the sun the obvious conclusion is that since Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and it is the only one that shows any significant anomaly, it's by Occams razor a result of the much more powerful 'pull' of gravity on light.
I don't see how this is so deep. Even Einy the jewtarded thief said it was gravity! he just didn't know what gravity was.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 47214963
United States
09/22/2013 03:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Re: REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!
Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183

It was tho ONLY thing that he could have cobbled up an excuse for his "trick of the light" explanation for the precession anomaly.

OH WELL that jackassogen is detrimental to mental function......even cracked mental functioning
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 47214963

Parallax no doubt does play a role in the observational anomaly albeit a very tiny one, but given the proximity to the sun the obvious conclusion is that since Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun and it is the only one that shows any significant anomaly, it's by Occams razor a result of the much more powerful 'pull' of gravity on light.
I don't see how this is so deep. Even Einy the jewtarded thief said it was gravity! he just didn't know what gravity was.
Quoting: AA 47216577

Too late Dunce

You already cut off that wiggle avenue

Moranium......rapidly off gassing stupidium