stevebee92653 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Ah, the immense name change thingy. You sure focus on the important stuff.

The important stuff is that you have used made up names and credentials to lend support to your inane videos. So perhaps it is a good thing that relativity goes back, at least as far as Galileo. So do inertial isolated systems.

First, let me congratulate you on your Google abilities. Are you showing off?
Ah, so Galileo figured the relationship between the speed of an object and time and an observer and the observed thousands of years before Einstein? Wow, thanks for that information Oldskeptic.

DaveD wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Ah, the immense name change thingy. You sure focus on the important stuff.

The important stuff is that you have used made up names and credentials to lend support to your inane videos. So perhaps it is a good thing that you are finely using your real name. It is far easier to check the credentials of a 70 year old retired dentist, living in Laguna Hills than it is some made up Phd at a made up think tank.

Thought experiments? Thomas, didn't you know that Einstein came up with relativity with thought experiments?

Well actually relativity goes back, at least as far as Galileo. So do inertial isolated systems.

First, let me congratulate you on your Google abilities. Are you showing off?
Ah, so Galileo figured the relationship between the speed of an object and time and an observer and the observed thousand of years before Einstein? Wow, thanks for that information Oldskeptic.

Your own Google abilities are sadly lacking if you think Galileo lived "thousand [sic] of years before Einstein". I can only hope, for your own sake, that you haven't overreached yourself with this book of yours. Colouring book, is it?

If you buy it you can make it a colouring book, or note pad, or dart board, or anything you like. Above all, don't read it. I may make you question your belief system just a bit. Now we couldn't have anything like that, could we? And, obviously oops on the thousand. That's the second error I ever made in my life, so not too bad really. The first was when I accepted evolution as my personal savior.

Oldskeptic wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

Ah, the immense name change thingy. You sure focus on the important stuff.

The important stuff is that you have used made up names and credentials to lend support to your inane videos. So perhaps it is a good thing that relativity goes back, at least as far as Galileo. So do inertial isolated systems.

First, let me congratulate you on your Google abilities. Are you showing off?
Ah, so Galileo figured the relationship between the speed of an object and time and an observer and the observed thousands of years before Einstein? Wow, thanks for that information Oldskeptic.

If I wanted to show off I'd post your phone number, address, and a google earth picture of your house.

Galileo observed that an object dropped on a moving ship traveled in a straight line relative to the movement of the ship. And was bright enough to figure out that someone not on the ship would see the object falling differently. Not in a straight line, but in an arc. The time would be the same but the distance traveled would be longer. That's relativity and the beginning of inertial frames of reference.

You wouldn't know anything about though would you, since you don't even know when Galileo lived.

Your knowledge of science and history is as deficient as your knowledge of biology and evolution.

Rumraket said
So your newfound insights turn out to be nothing but a moneymaking scheme. Check!

"if you want to know what I think, give me money".

Your thoughts on any imaginable subject are wholly without interest or merit.

stevebee92653 wrote:

lucek wrote:Clearly it's like the I in Iphone/imac/Ipod. It had meaning in an early stage but now just Just stands for I'm cool too.

Oh and I guess I have to update my avatar???



But moving on. Steve not that you are back do you want to talk about something in depth for once. Perhaps you could comment of my post above were in I explain why death after many years of possible reproduction is evolutionary favored over death before maturity?

Doesn't sound like an interesting discussion. Maybe we could try something else.

stevebee92653 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

The important stuff is that you have used made up names and credentials to lend support to your inane videos. So perhaps it is a good thing that relativity goes back, at least as far as Galileo. So do inertial isolated systems.

First, let me congratulate you on your Google abilities. Are you showing off?
Ah, so Galileo figured the relationship between the speed of an object and time and an observer and the observed thousands of years before Einstein? Wow, thanks for that information Oldskeptic.

If I wanted to show off I'd post your phone number, address, and a google earth picture of your house.

Galileo observed that an object dropped on a moving ship traveled in a straight line relative to the movement of the ship. And was bright enough to figure out that someone not on the ship would see the object falling differently. Not in a straight line, but in an arc. The time would be the same but the distance traveled would be longer. That's relativity and the beginning of inertial frames of reference.

You wouldn't know anything about though would you, since you don't even know when Galileo lived.

Your knowledge of science and history is as deficient as your knowledge of biology and evolution.

Oldskeptic, you obviously have no absolute idea what Einstein's theory on the relationship between time and speed between an observer and the observed is, now do you.

stevebee92653 wrote:It would be a fascinating thing for you to learn, and by jove, the story is in my book! You're in luck! You will also learn many things you obviously don't know about, like protein synthesis, the formation of the universe, what might or might not have happened with the advent of the first proto cells. It would be a wonderful buy for you. I highly recommend it. Only 15 bucks!

stevebee92653 wrote:

Rumraket said
So your newfound insights turn out to be nothing but a moneymaking scheme. Check!

"if you want to know what I think, give me money".

Your thoughts on any imaginable subject are wholly without interest or merit.

Only fifteen bucks for the book Rumraket Hours of entertainment and ragging for you, so cheap!

stevebee92653 wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:

Paul Almond wrote:stevebee's book will be:

self-published - and he will never earn back an appreciable amount of what he spends on it. (But at least he will be able to look at his copy of the book and feel that he is a real author. They may even give him a special certificate or something.)

ranked at 7 thousand million billion in amazon's sales figures.

completely ripped apart in amazon reviews by users - Steve would effectively be paying to provide another channel for mockery.

There is nothing to dislike about this.

Yea, you guys can go to Amazon, and not read the book, (of course), and do your "up his arse"... "more creationist crap"... intelligent reviews that match most of the "intelligent" comments here at ratskep. You'll have a blast! I can't wait to see how you will fall into lock step like good little evolutionauts...tro lo lo.

Is your book that much different from what you have posted here and on your site?

Completely new and different stuff for you to attack. Or actually think about and maybe even wonder and question just a bit.....nah.

ElDiablo wrote:Can you give an example of something completely new?

stevebee92653 wrote:Don't you get it CADman? I placed that statement on the cover to make you wonder...and buy the book so you can see what IID is. If I tell you I would defeat the purpose of the cover. Everyone would know.

Paul wrote:To be fair, he didn't come back to promote the book. He came back because the book was mentioned by CADman2300.

theropod wrote:I feel the issue arises when the content is purposefully formed to stir up shit. There is no rational discourse even attempted by Steve.

CADman2300 wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:Don't you get it CADman? I placed that statement on the cover to make you wonder...and buy the book so you can see what IID is. If I tell you I would defeat the purpose of the cover. Everyone would know.

I'm not going to waste my money on a book that likely doesn't even exist, and if you wish to accomplish anything, question dodging like this is highly counterproductive. I hate repeating myself but just answer the damn question. What does "IID"stand for?

Ah! That evidence is in the book that the post describes.

Carl, you write books for a living. Do you rehearse their content on your blog for anyone who asks?

If I make a strong claim about science in an online forum, and someone asks me for evidence for that claim, I do not say, “Well, you’ll just have to read my book.” I provide the evidence–I point to the peer-reviewed research on which I based my statement.

Thomas Eshuis
I'd much rather read a book about Einstein's theories by people who've actually studied him and who have a background in physics...

Scar wrote:Why would I pay 15 bucks for a bunch of lies when I can have a bible for free?