Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That's A Typical Response From You

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by pmb on February 12, 2000 15:37:47 UTC

Since you're in the habit of telling people that they don't understand something when they disagree with you (you're like naysayer in this manner and I'm sick to death of him) then I see no reason to continue responding to tyou or reading such arrogant displays. From now on you will be in error if you interpret my silence or lack of response to anything to anything other than I haven't read wha you write.

I'll respond to this and only this post and then please assume that I won't respond to you since I won't be reading them. Then you may feel free to continue in your insulting manner. ------ re - " Its not off at all. Don't miss-correct statements that you didn't understand."

This is known as "A difference of opinion" in case you didn't know. I see no connection between the finite nature of the speed of light to this. But I do see a connection to the local frame invariance of "c". Had you inquired further we could have discussed this. In the future you could try to avoid bein rude by cease using commenst like "Don't miss-correct statements that you didn't understand." I understood it. I also disagree with it to a certain extent hence the use of by qualifier a bit.

re - "I know exactly what it means, and what you just said is exactly what I meant by it."

I wasn't addressing you, or hadn't you noticed? I was responding to Andrews post. One shouldn't assume that all readers understand the terminology that is used in GR especially in a forum like this. I was talking to Andrew Robins. It wans't obvious to me that he was well versed in GR. Hence the " case you're unfamiliar.."

re - "I said it the way I did for a reason." - I didn't say it was wrong did I?

re - "This is always true in special relativity." - The topic was gravity.

re - "This was obviously a special relativity question." - Perhaps to you it was. But then again I wasn't talking to you. I was responding to "Great, mass curves space-time and causes gravity, WHY?" as well as other things.

Adios. You may now continue to flame me at will without any interuptions from me.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins