Sujet : Re: Langevin's paradox again
De : python (at) *nospam* invalid.org (Python)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 09. Jul 2024, 18:08:49
Autres entêtes
Organisation : CCCP
Message-ID : <v6jqr1$1dcp9$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Le 09/07/2024 à 19:05, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:47, Python pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 17:35, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 09.07.2024 o 17:02, Python pisze:
Le 09/07/2024 à 16:54, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
...
It is. Apart of mumbling inconsistently -
the idiot didn't understand what yhe
human age is, how it is determined and
that clocks have nothing in common with
that.
Of course, an age of a human is determined
by subtracting his birthdate from the
current date. It always was.
>
*facepalm*
>
You stupidity is abysmal Wozniak.
>
When a person's age is unknown there are biological
ways to estimate it, you know?
>
You really think that
these methods are inaccurate?
>
You really think they are not
>
So you cannot answer. No surprise.
You fabricate and lie. No surprise.
>
Aging is a biological process. It matches with stationary> (respectively with the person's body) clocks
No, poor stinker, it doesn't.
No surprise you don't know, of cxourse -
You generally know very little.
As a matter of fact metabolism is a kind of clock.
No, poor stinker, it is not.
Just like all relativistic morons
you don't know what a clock is.
And determining of age is still
- subtracting dates. That a fanatic
piece of shit doesn't like it
changes nothing.
Wozniak, you stupidity is beyond all limits.
Langevin's paradox again
Re: Langevin's paradox again
