# Thread: Special relativity is harder to understand

1. Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!

2. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!
No! Your theory is a different colour to my theory!

3. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!
No! Your theory is a different colour to my theory!
You seem all have fun here.
welcome.

4. OK, we have been beating on fermions for quite sometime now.

Let's go back to bosons for a change.

Unfortunately, my theory can't say much about bosons right now.

So my first question for all of us is:
what is the root cause that makes bosons non-distinguishable?

is it because the integral spin bosons have?
anything idea?

5. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
You seem all have fun here.
welcome.
So - you are unable to refute my theory?
I expected as much.
I have thought about my theory for a long time, so I know it is right.
And since your theory is diametrically opposite to my theory: your theory must be wrong.

6. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
what is the root cause that makes bosons non-distinguishable?
I think Bose-Einstein statistics are due to the fact that they do not interact with one another. Whereas fermions take part in a number of interactions (mediated by bosons, of course).

7. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
You seem all have fun here.
welcome.
So - you are unable to refute my theory?
I expected as much.
I have thought about my theory for a long time, so I know it is right.
And since your theory is diametrically opposite to my theory: your theory must be wrong.
Are you serious?
I don't know anything about your theory, so you first have to state and explain your theory.
I have said a lot of things here, if you think my statement is not correct, you can quote me and present your argument, like Markus has done.

8. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
what is the root cause that makes bosons non-distinguishable?
I think Bose-Einstein statistics are due to the fact that they do not interact with one another. Whereas fermions take part in a number of interactions (mediated by bosons, of course).
So photons never bump into each other?
that is interesting, how photons manage to do that?

9. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I don't know anything about your theory, so you first have to state and explain your theory.
He has provided exactly the same amount of math and supporting evidence as you have. However, I prefer his theory; he makes a more compelling argument.

10. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
that is interesting, how photons manage to do that?
Something to do with them being bosons, perhaps?

11. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I don't know anything about your theory, so you first have to state and explain your theory.
I have said a lot of things here, if you think my statement is not correct, you can quote me and present your argument, like Markus has done.
Well, one aspect of my theory is something I call The Law of Unaccountability.

To summarise it:
Each class of rest frame is identical.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes indistinguishable if applied acceleration.

This clearly refutes at least one of your claims.

12. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I don't know anything about your theory, so you first have to state and explain your theory.
I have said a lot of things here, if you think my statement is not correct, you can quote me and present your argument, like Markus has done.
Well, one aspect of my theory is something I call The Law of Unaccountability.

To summarise it:
Each class of rest frame is identical.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes indistinguishable if applied acceleration.

This clearly refutes at least one of your claims.
Rest frame is my idea, how come it becomes your idea?
No wonder Beer w/Straw says you stole her idea.

I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
like the word identical here, identical in what? in idea, in concept, in position, in speed, in direction? what identical?
you can't make law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.

13. Damn. Another Irony Meter bites the dust.

14. Yep, as well as not understanding physics he appears to not understand when people are taking the piss out of his unsupported claims by posting their own in parody...

15. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Rest frame is my idea, how come it becomes your idea?
No wonder Beer w/Straw says you stole her idea.

I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
like the word identical here, identical in what? in idea, in concept, in position, in speed, in direction? what identical?
you can't make law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.
To tell you the truth, I don't know exactly what this law entails and means, but it just smells right.
They are natural and self evident in their correctness.
This law continues focusing on the themes of conformity and unaccountability.
This law introduces the concept of acceleration, and it's implied definition.
This law just came to me when i was reading a wiki page on Einstein's equivalence principle.
I don't know if the principle of classification has its counter part in Einstein's relativity.

Surely that is more than enough to convince you that my theory is correct.

16. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Well, one aspect of my theory is something I call The Law of Unaccountability.

To summarise it:
Each class of rest frame is identical.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes indistinguishable if applied acceleration.

This clearly refutes at least one of your claims.
Is a Zimmer frame close to being a rest frame?

17. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Each class of rest frame is unique.
I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
Like the word "unique" here - what is unique? The idea? The concept? The position? The speed? The direction? What aspect is unique?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.

18. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Each class of rest frame is unique.
I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
Like the word "unique" here - what is unique? The idea? The concept? The position? The speed? The direction? What aspect is unique?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.
I want to know since when rest frame become your idea.
and why Beer w/Straw says you stole her idea?

I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread, and how come now it becomes your idea?
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.

19. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Each class of rest frame is unique.
I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
Like the word "unique" here - what is unique? The idea? The concept? The position? The speed? The direction? What aspect is unique?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.
I want to know since when rest frame become your idea.
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread, and how come now it becomes your idea?
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
Can you not explain exactly what you mean by "unique"?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and why Beer w/Straw says you stole her idea?
Because Beer w/Straw is colour-blind.

20. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread...
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
That would be an incorrect assumption on your part..

21. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread...
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
That would be an incorrect assumption on your part..
A few million results in google does not mean that I didn't invent "rest frame".
I came up with the term years ago, before the internet and before trilosohpical corrupted my theory.
I will sue all those web-sites for using "rest frame" without my express permission.

22. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread, and how come now it becomes your idea?
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
Oh, so if I decide to call it a banana frame, I have invented a new concept?

23. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Each class of rest frame is unique.
I can see that you still need to learn how to use the right words.
Like the word "unique" here - what is unique? The idea? The concept? The position? The speed? The direction? What aspect is unique?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.
I want to know since when rest frame become your idea.
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread, and how come now it becomes your idea?
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
Can you not explain exactly what you mean by "unique"?
You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity.

Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and why Beer w/Straw says you stole her idea?
Because Beer w/Straw is colour-blind.
you still don't understand the subtlety here.
unique is very narrow in its meaning, any little difference qualifies uniqueness;
to be identical, you have to cover a wide range to make sure all aspects are the same.

but you still did not answer my question, why you are using the same terminology and basic idea of mine and calling it your theory?
because it is not just the concept of rest frame here, it is also the idea of accountability, the combination of two make it very unlikely that both of us would come up at the same time, right?

24. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread...
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
That would be an incorrect assumption on your part..
good catch, finally got your chance
but the problem here is not just the coincidence of rest frame, it is also the idea of accountability, it is the combination of two that makes it very unlikely.

25. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
but the problem here is not just the coincidence of rest frame, it is also the idea of accountability, it is the combination of two that makes it very unlikely.
Yeah, I call bollocks on this.
Your claim (and I'll quote it) was:
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread...
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
In other words: you were wrong.

26. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
you still don't understand the subtlety here.
unique is very narrow in its meaning, any little difference qualifies uniqueness;
to be identical, you have to cover a wide range to make sure all aspects are the same.
You still don't understand the subtlety here.
Identical is very broad in its meaning, any little difference disqualifies identicality™.
To be unique, you have to cover a broad range to make sure the combination of all aspects is different.

27. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
but the problem here is not just the coincidence of rest frame, it is also the idea of accountability, it is the combination of two that makes it very unlikely.
Yeah, I call bollocks on this.
Your claim (and I'll quote it) was:
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I created the concept of rest frame right here in this thread...
because in standard physics, people don't say rest frame, the say reference frame.
In other words: you were wrong.
I can see you are proud of your catch, I don't blame you.

28. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
you still don't understand the subtlety here.
unique is very narrow in its meaning, any little difference qualifies uniqueness;
to be identical, you have to cover a wide range to make sure all aspects are the same.
You still don't understand the subtlety here.
Identical is very broad in its meaning, any little difference disqualifies identicality™.
To be unique, you have to cover a broad range to make sure the combination of all aspects is different.
I think you need to answer my question that you use my ideas of rest frame and of accountability and calling them your theory.
this is a serious matter.

29. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
you still don't understand the subtlety here.
unique is very narrow in its meaning, any little difference qualifies uniqueness;
to be identical, you have to cover a wide range to make sure all aspects are the same.
You still don't understand the subtlety here.
Identical is very broad in its meaning, any little difference disqualifies identicality™.
To be unique, you have to cover a broad range to make sure the combination of all aspects is different.
I think you need to answer my question that you use my ideas of rest frame and of accountability and calling them your theory.
this is a serious matter.
It isn't your idea, idiot. Rest frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

30. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think you need to answer on my question that you use my ideas of rest frame and accountability and calling them your theory.
this is a serious matter.
I did not use your idea of rest frame - it was my idea first. You simply "borrowed" it for your "theory".
And my theory does not even mention "accountability" - why are you misrepresenting my work?

My theory is clearly justified, whereas your "theory" relies on vague words and plagiarism.
As I have always said: "You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity."

31. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think you need to answer on my question that you use my ideas of rest frame and accountability and calling them your theory.
this is a serious matter.
I did not use your idea of rest frame - it was my idea first. You simply "borrowed" it for your "theory".
And my theory does not even mention "accountability" - why are you misrepresenting my work?

My theory is clearly justified, whereas your "theory" relies on vague words and plagiarism.
As I have always said: "You can't make a law with that kind of wording that leaves all kinds of ambiguity."
Ok, here is my version:

The Law of Accountability
Each class of rest frame is unique.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are non-distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes distinguishable if applied acceleration.

and here is what you said:

Well, one aspect of my theory is something I call The Law of Unaccountability.

To summarise it:
Each class of rest frame is identical.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes indistinguishable if applied acceleratio

there are actually three notions here,
rest frame,
class of rest frame
the idea of counting them
and the style of wording,
need i say more?

32. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
this is a serious matter.
And it is not a serious matter.

In case you haven't realised yet, everyone is laughing at you. (For obvious reasons.)

33. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
need i say more?
Well, you could apologise for stealing his idea and just changing a few words. I think it is outrageous.

34. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Ok, here is my version:

The Law of Accountability
Each class of rest frame is unique.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are non-distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes distinguishable if applied acceleration.

and here is what you said:

Well, one aspect of my theory is something I call The Law of Unaccountability.

To summarise it:
Each class of rest frame is identical.
Rest frames of a class (of rest frame) are distinguishable.
A rest frame becomes indistinguishable if applied acceleratio

there are actually three notions here,
rest frame,
class of rest frame
the idea of counting them
and the style of wording,
need i say more?
No. No more needs to be said.
It is patently clear from the comparison that my theory has more going for it.
Whereas your theory relies on ambiguity and baseless assertions.

And...I said acceleration not acceleratio.
I am not Italian.

35. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
need i say more?
Well, you could apologise for stealing his idea and just changing a few words. I think it is outrageous.
This is not funny and I found what you said here very offensive.
you have made fun on me many times and I never said anything back.
but i think this time you are clearly out of bound.
I don't know why you would behave this way.
if you don't like what i say here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read my post, right?

36. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
if you don't like what i say here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read my post, right?
On the contrary: this is a science forum.
YOU shouldn't be posting crap here.

37. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
This is not funny
On the contrary, your repeated claims "proof" and "theory" are very funny. And a tiny bit sad.

38. looks like a few people are ganging up on me.
let me analyze a little bit to see who they are.

one is called RedPanda (panda of china no doubt, and a red one) who blatantly stole my theory - no surprise here.
the other one called Strange who uses chinese character for his location.

I think they are trolls from china, maybe part of the famous 50 cent army?

there is a bunch of chinese trolls here, the way they behave and think are all so similar.

like you must have math to make argument in science, this is a typical product of chinese education that only knows rote and formulae.

I don't know why these people are here and why they are so active, maybe try to make 50 cents?

39. It's not ganging up, it is people who take science seriously (that is why we are here) pointing out you are making up nonsense and trying to pass it off as physics (which seems to be why you are here -- mental masturbation as a hobby). The established membership see pointing out BS for the BS it is as a public service.

Does the fact that 6 posters (myself, Strange, Red Panda, the duck, AlexG and Markus) who have shown on this forum that they have a solid understanding of science with well over 30,000 posts between them pointing out your are talking out of your anus and that your unsupported assertions are in no way a viable theory, just some crap you have made up, give you any pause for thought? The answer is obviously no, just like every other crackpot who would rather make stuff up than study.

40. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
like you must have math to make argument in science, this is a typical product of chinese education that only knows rote and formulae.
Um, yeah. You must "have math" to be taken seriously that you know what the **** you're talking about.

Nothing to do with China, everything to do with science.

41. If you can't do the math, how do you know you're right?

:EDIT:

ninja'd

42. Originally Posted by Daecon

Nothing to do with China, everything to do with science.
Quite, Red Panda (like myself) is a Brit...

43. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
if you don't like what i say here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read my post, right?
On the contrary: this is a science forum.
YOU shouldn't be posting crap here.
another chinese troll?
and with such authoritarian magnanimity.

44. Nope another Brit, who is tired of your crap.

45. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
one is called RedPanda (panda of china no doubt, and a red one) who blatantly stole my theory - no surprise here.
I have not stolen your "theory".
If you bothered to read my theory, you would see that it is very different to your "theory".
Your "theory" is just some vague hand-waving, where as my theory is clearly defined.

You, on the other hand, have stolen my scientific term "rest frame". Please give it back.

p.s.
我是不是中国人。

46. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
another chinese troll?
and with such authoritarian magnanimity.
In light of your comprehension difficulties I'll refrain from further comment on this.

47. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
the other one called Strange who uses chinese character for his location.
Not Chinese characters. How dare you insult me like that. おれは中国人じゃないよ！

48. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
another chinese troll?
and with such authoritarian magnanimity.
In light of your comprehension difficulties I'll refrain from further comment on this.
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?

49. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
If you don't like what he says here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read his post, right?

50. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
Given the lamentable lack of logic and rationality you've displayed in posts I'm not at all under the impression that my comments are of any value to you.

51. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
Given the lamentable lack of logic and rationality you've displayed in posts I'm not at all under the impression that my comments are of any value to you.

hey quacky

Your posts are actually not valuable. You offer nothing to place, not even the slightest bit of interest. You're a nasty projection of what science forums have become. I troll fest of unintelligible slanders.

52. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
If you can't do the math, how do you know you're right?

:EDIT:

ninja'd
who says I can't do the math?
just because I choose to use words does not mean I don't know math.
as a matter of fact, my real strength is in math.

53. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
If you don't like what he says here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read his post, right?

You're not as bad as quacky above, but that doesn't make you better. You hide in the shadows and only contribute when it serves your selfish endeavours. Probably an emotional problem, like most trolls, their life lacks in an essential way and so to fill the void, you bring people down here.

54. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
another chinese troll?
and with such authoritarian magnanimity.
In light of your comprehension difficulties I'll refrain from further comment on this.
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?

Keep your money in your pocket, because quacky can't even put it where his mouth is.

55. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!

You're a bit more mouthy here than you are at sciforums. I see you like to pretend to talk about science while lacking quintessential knowledge of basics.

56. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
I troll fest of unintelligible slanders.
Is that English?
If my posts are unintelligible what makes you think they're slander?
(And I think you actually meant libel).
Could you point out any slander/ libel?
(I.e. false defamatory claims).

57. ...

58. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
If you don't like what he says here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read his post, right?
You're not as bad as quacky above, but that doesn't make you better. You hide in the shadows and only contribute when it serves your selfish endeavours. Probably an emotional problem, like most trolls, their life lacks in an essential way and so to fill the void, you bring people down here.
Are you saying that my reply is the reply of a troll with emotional problems?

59. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
I troll fest of unintelligible slanders.
Is that English?
If my posts are unintelligible what makes you think they're slander?

Because you are a streak of misery who when, their knowledge is exposed in the most efficient way, resorts to unintelligible slander.

Poetic? Rather a nightmare to be honest. Life is often shit enough without seeing the dregs of the barrel like you.

60. Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by RedPanda
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
and what makes you think your comments is of any value to me?
If you don't like what he says here, you don't need to come, nobody forces you to read his post, right?
You're not as bad as quacky above, but that doesn't make you better. You hide in the shadows and only contribute when it serves your selfish endeavours. Probably an emotional problem, like most trolls, their life lacks in an essential way and so to fill the void, you bring people down here.
Are you saying that my reply is the reply of a troll with emotional problems?

No you reply to trolls because of emotional problems. Something is missing in your life, lest you find it.

61. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!

You're a bit more mouthy here than you are at sciforums. I see you like to pretend to talk about science while lacking quintessential knowledge of basics.

Um... I didn't constantly get banned from sciforums in making sock after sock after sock.

And the basics in what, cosmology?

And... And... Why did you bother quoting me?

62. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Because you are a streak of misery who when, their knowledge is exposed in the most efficient way, resorts to unintelligible slander.
One more time:
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
If my posts are unintelligible what makes you think they're slander?
And again:
Could you point out any slander/ libel?
(I.e. false defamatory claims).

Or should we take it that is yet another made up "fact" of yours?
(Or, just maybe, it's an "error").

63. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!

You're a bit more mouthy here than you are at sciforums. I see you like to pretend to talk about science while lacking quintessential knowledge of basics.

Um... I didn't constantly get banned from sciforums in making sock after sock after sock.

You're a shitty little troll who never had the balls obviously to play with the big boys. Though last night when you did, you really are more suited to a play pen with rattles... and plastic toys.

64. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Because you are a streak of misery who when, their knowledge is exposed in the most efficient way, resorts to unintelligible slander.
One more time.

One... more time?

Story of your life. One more time at a troll, one more insult to deliver yes? As I said, you're actually one of the worst here. A petty void inside of your hollow existence of a life... admit it.

65. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
One... more time?
Story of your life. One more time at a troll, one more insult to deliver yes? As I said, you're actually one of the worst here. A petty void inside of your hollow existence of a life... admit it.
So you can't answer either question.
Got it.
You were lying. Again.

PS: you're doing pretty well for someone who's left.

66. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
One... more time?
Story of your life. One more time at a troll, one more insult to deliver yes? As I said, you're actually one of the worst here. A petty void inside of your hollow existence of a life... admit it.
So you can't answer either question.

Disappointed in you...

I don't need to answer anything, I just need to be opinionated and say you're wrong and full of shit. Didn't you know, this qualified as a rebuttal here?

even better, we should just openly attack you since that behaviour is tolerated here. Isn't this common ground with you? Am I not rolling in the filth enough with you?

67. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

You're a shitty little troll who never had the balls obviously to play with the big boys. Though last night when you did, you really are more suited to a play pen with rattles... and plastic toys.
I do find you trying to insult me quite cute.

68. I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life, but that does not give you the right to abuse others.

and for those chinese trolls, go somewhere else for your 50 cents.

69. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

You're a shitty little troll who never had the balls obviously to play with the big boys. Though last night when you did, you really are more suited to a play pen with rattles... and plastic toys.
I do find you trying to insult me quite cute.

Oh I see, it turns you on. And people call me sick?

70. Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life...

We don't need a life. Again, you just need to be a little shit bag and that passes you off with a doctorate here.

71. Yeah, maybe you should take some time off to, uh, convalesce?

72. Originally Posted by Daecon
Yeah, maybe you should take some time off to, uh, convalesce?

Oh god no, not with the life lessons here from the general populous. Obviously being a total hack quack qualifies you a permanent position here.

73. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life...

We don't need a life. Again, you just need to be a little shit bag and that passes you off with a doctorate here.

I don't know if you were talking about me, or yourself.

74. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life...

We don't need a life. Again, you just need to be a little shit bag and that passes you off with a doctorate here.

I don't if you were talking about me, or yourself.

No definitely you. You never spoke to me on sciforums, but here within only a few posts you started attacking me... based on you just being a total jerk faced troll who thinks they can talk about science, but who actually can't talk about science, hence why you are no where to be seen in the physics subforum at sciforums. Yet here, you think you can get away with it... well guess what, you appear to be right. With the most minimal knowledge and attitude worth equal to scum, you are worshipped. Not for knowledge, for entertainment.

75. This thread needs more kittens:

76. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life...

We don't need a life. Again, you just need to be a little shit bag and that passes you off with a doctorate here.

I don't if you were talking about me, or yourself.

No definitely you. You never spoke to me on sciforums, but here within only a few posts you started attacking me... based on you just being a total jerk faced troll who thinks they can talk about science, but who actually can't talk about science, hence why you are no where to be seen in the physics subforum at sciforums. Yet here, you think you can get away with it... well guess what, you appear to be right. With the most minimal knowledge and attitude worth equal to scum, you are worshipped. Not for knowledge, for entertainment.
Hey, look! I'm still not banned.

The Whole Energy of our Universe - Page 3

Was years though, not seconds....

77. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by trilosohpical
I think a lot of the "I am the science" authoritarians here really need to lighten up.

It is understandable that you guys don't have life...

We don't need a life. Again, you just need to be a little shit bag and that passes you off with a doctorate here.

I don't if you were talking about me, or yourself.

No definitely you. You never spoke to me on sciforums, but here within only a few posts you started attacking me... based on you just being a total jerk faced troll who thinks they can talk about science, but who actually can't talk about science, hence why you are no where to be seen in the physics subforum at sciforums. Yet here, you think you can get away with it... well guess what, you appear to be right. With the most minimal knowledge and attitude worth equal to scum, you are worshipped. Not for knowledge, for entertainment.
Hey, look! I'm still not banned.

The Whole Energy of our Universe - Page 3

Was years though, not seconds....

And why was I banned? Because I made a name of myself under Reiku. The name Reiku doesn't seem to wash from peoples minds, he's about as famous a troll as any was.

Reiku is dead. His creator is bored of the cranks, the attacks... he's just about had enough of it. Years and years of abuse simply because the ''consensus'' was I was a troll and couldn't change... well do you know what I have seen here in the last few weeks... big changes. Not only do I see obvious errors people make, but I am punished for their mistakes, my threads are thrown in the trash.

Yes... I have changed, it's the mentality of people like you and of the site's moderation which hasn't.

78. But, do you know what kind of names you've just recently called me?

79. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
But, do you know what kind of names you've just recently called me?

Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.

80. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
But, do you know what kind of names you've just recently called me?

Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.

Says you.

81. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
But, do you know what kind of names you've just recently called me?

Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.

Says you.

Yes me. You really do deserve this and probably more.

82. In fact I could spend all day abusing you verbally. People have got away doing it with me?

Ah but you see, things do change. Though I really do believe you deserve your fair share, turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads, complained enough for moderators to actually be duped by unintelligible twats.... sad really.

83. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
In fact I could spend all day abusing you verbally. People have got away doing it with me?

Ah but you see, things do change. Though I really do believe you deserve your fair share, turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads, complained enough for moderators to actually be duped by unintelligible twats.... sad really.

84. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
In fact I could spend all day abusing you verbally. People have got away doing it with me?

Ah but you see, things do change. Though I really do believe you deserve your fair share, turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads, complained enough for moderators to actually be duped by unintelligible twats.... sad really.

No no no... I'm telling the truth. You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming... things you write about now will be held against you like you hold quotations I made nearly 10 years ago and still hold me to it.

85. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

No no no... I'm telling the truth. You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming... things you write about now will be held against you like you hold quotations I made nearly 10 years ago and still hold me to it.
So, you're mad at xyzt/tach/trout? (I presume.)

86. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome

No no no... I'm telling the truth. You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming... things you write about now will be held against you like you hold quotations I made nearly 10 years ago and still hold me to it.
So, you're mad at xyzt/tach/trout? (I presume.)

Thanks, you confirmed what I knew then. I thought he was Tach.

He used to call equations numerology all the time, turns out I was right then. It is that stupid troll who got himself banned as well from sciforums.

87. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming
Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.
turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads
MODERATOR WARNING : I will not accept this type of language on here - one more like this and you will be finding yourself on a suspension. This goes for everyone else as well. Keep it civilised.

88. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming
Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.
turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads
MODERATOR WARNING : I will not accept this type of language on here - one more like this and you will be finding yourself on a suspension. This goes for everyone else as well. Keep it civilised.

You're likely letting me off easy. Is this so that the moderation can pardon the abuse and lack civility I've had to endure?

89. I think I've helped derail this thread.

So, why did you bother quoting this post?

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Originally Posted by RedPanda
My theory proves your theory wrong because my theory sees the complete opposite of what your theory does.
You stole my theory!
And accuse me of being mouthy?

90. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming
Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.
turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads
MODERATOR WARNING : I will not accept this type of language on here - one more like this and you will be finding yourself on a suspension. This goes for everyone else as well. Keep it civilised.

You're likely letting me off easy. Is this so that the moderation can pardon the abuse and lack civility I've had to endure?
Well to be fair, we've had to endure your lack of reason, logic, physics and sanity....

91. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
You nasty little fuck-faced trolls have their fair share coming
Nothing you didn't deserve in the end, bitch.
turns out I am nothing like you or any of the fuckwits who have trolled my threads
MODERATOR WARNING : I will not accept this type of language on here - one more like this and you will be finding yourself on a suspension. This goes for everyone else as well. Keep it civilised.

You're likely letting me off easy. Is this so that the moderation can pardon the abuse and lack civility I've had to endure?
Well to be fair, we've had to endure your lack of reason, logic, physics and sanity....
That's not what I see. I see people making fundamental errors, they can't perform square root signs nor can they actually measure the dimensions of equations (like Tach demonstrated)

You think I am the problem... sweetheart, you haven't scratched the surface. The real problem is right on your doorsteps and the fact mods here are duped by these meat worms... it's brainwashing.

92. Idiocy is the problem, yours...

93. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Idiocy is the problem, yours...

Oh of course, not the fact you lack any ability to hold down an intelligent discussion on physics without descending into some sort of derogatory come-back.

It's all about verbal abuse, a lot of people have plenty words to say about my past discrepancies while all along they are making tonnes of them themselves.

Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. Except this is 10 years later Reiku, and I am the one pointing out mistakes now. Why don't you lot go take some math classes, come back when you know how to square root an equation, or able to read metric units. You know... the most trivial and basic math operations which a lot of people here seem to be lacking.

94. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
That's not what I see. I see people making fundamental errors
What about "people" lying, inventing "facts", stating untrue things as if they were established fact...?

95. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Idiocy is the problem, yours...

Oh of course, not the fact you lack any ability to hold down an intelligent discussion on physics without descending into some sort of derogatory come-back.

It's all about verbal abuse, a lot of people have plenty words to say about my past discrepancies while all along they are making tonnes of them themselves.

Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. Except this is 10 years later Reiku, and I am the one pointing out mistakes now. Why don't you lot go take some math classes, come back when you know how to square root an equation, or able to read metric units. You know... the most trivial and basic math operations which a lot of people here seem to be lacking.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you are in a minority of one.

96. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
That's not what I see. I see people making fundamental errors
What about "people" lying, inventing "facts", stating untrue things as if they were established fact...?

You mean like Tach, who calls things out wrong all the time, while really, he is in the wrong?

Oh yes, there are a few posters like that here. You on the other hand want to stick to stick to ''slight technicalities'' in dates and call it a lie.

Well I am not half ashamed of that than some posters who can't even perform a square root sign. Do you realize how non-trivial it is?

97. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Idiocy is the problem, yours...

Oh of course, not the fact you lack any ability to hold down an intelligent discussion on physics without descending into some sort of derogatory come-back.

It's all about verbal abuse, a lot of people have plenty words to say about my past discrepancies while all along they are making tonnes of them themselves.

Pot, kettle, black comes to mind. Except this is 10 years later Reiku, and I am the one pointing out mistakes now. Why don't you lot go take some math classes, come back when you know how to square root an equation, or able to read metric units. You know... the most trivial and basic math operations which a lot of people here seem to be lacking.
You're entitled to your opinion, but you are in a minority of one.

Based on what? Cliques?

Aye, nice consensus. Blind leading blind.

98. Based on the fact you are posting gibberish and lies and as such no one sane shares your opinion :shrug:

99. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Based on the fact you are posting gibberish and lies and as such no one sane shares your opinion :shrug:

In your world, gibberish usually translates as something you are ignorant about.

tach uses the word gibberish if he doesn't understand something, or undermines it by calling it numerology. Largely ignorance has contributed to this, not from my behalf. I have a vast knowledge of physics which a lot of you don't even have a clue about.

100. Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
I have a vast knowledge of physics which a lot of you don't even have a clue about.
Like Cosmology, I take it?

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last