#1 
#2 
#3 
Paste this URL into an email or IM: 
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.

Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.

Suggestions
Add New Argument 
1
point
Yeah, I get that, but you can't discuss anything with Stefan, he's a monologue kind of guy. Yep, Alex Jones is even worse and he is my next target followed by a guy on youtube who goes by "destiny". I am more interested in communicating to the fans than to the actual ass holes I'm debating so I will probably not use anyone's suggestions but I made this in case someone has an actual good idea. Then, you should find this video of Stephan teaching his daughter about interrupting people, while he's interupting people, hilarious. 2
points
Believing the Russians built a time machine is damn funny, especially when you called everyone else childish names while laughing inanely at them. All the while, it was Amaral who had it right and you banned him. Clearly, he made you look the complete fool and that's how you responded; like a small child who just got kicked out of the sand box. You're exact words to him... Always leave it up to Amarel to tell people what they've done wrong... That's a time machine, dumbass. This speaks volumes about how much of a hypocrite and dumbass you are. It's frggin hilarious to have watched you go postal on me and now you're showing your true side. Will the real ignorant Dumbass please stand up. Ha! 1
point
Believing the Russians built a time machine is damn funny Your ignorance of the laws of physics is the only funny thing my silly little buddy. There are no laws of quantum mechanics which prohibit the manipulation of time by machines or anything else. All the while, it was Amaral who had it right and you banned him. Amarel, the pointless idiot who got banned for inventing his own version of a story he didn't even read? That guy? It's pretty strange that things are "damn funny" to you while you simultaneously are attacking me. How many times in your life have you been attacked by people who are laughing? You're simply a butthurt imbecile still lamenting over the fact that you were publicly exposed as a liar. 5
points
Yes there are. No there aren't. Schrodenger equation Schrodinger equation. At least learn how to spell it. isn't invariant with respect to time reversal. This is both logically and grammatically incoherent. If the Schrodinger equation isn't invariant (i.e. doesn't "never change") then it isn't an equation in the first place. The Schrodinger equation has got nothing to do with time. It concerns wave function. Shut up. No there aren't. Sound argument. Schrodinger equation. At least learn how to spell it. This is a language issue and nothing more. Уравнение Шредингера. This is both logically and grammatically incoherent. If the Schrodinger equation isn't invariant (i.e. doesn't "never change") then it isn't an equation in the first place. LOL. You have no idea at all what you're talking about. "Invariant equation" means something completely different from what you're saying. The Schrodinger equation has got nothing to do with time. It concerns wave function. It concerns the evolution of the wave function in time. 5
points
This is a language issue and nothing more. It's a stupidity issue buddy. Copying Russian text from Google Translate isn't going to change that. Your English is fluent. Your idiocy is the stumbling block. LOL Sound argument. You have no idea at all what you're talking about Another sound argument. "Invariant equation" means something completely different from what you're saying. You didn't write "invariant equation" you pitiful idiot. The nonsense you wrote was, "The Schrodenger (sic) equation isn't invariant with respect to time reversal", which means absolutely nothing at all. It's fucking gobbledegook. A Google search of "invariant equation" produces literally no matches. You're a pathetic fucking imbecile. It concerns the evolution of the wave function in time. No it doesn't you fucking ridiculously stupid retard. Time is not a variable contained anywhere in the Schrodinger equation. Shut your ignorant mouth. The Schrodenger equation isn't invariant with respect to time reversal", which means absolutely nothing at all LOL. Most of modern physics studies group transform of the fundamental equations. Maxwell equations are invariant with respect to the Lorenz transform, which was the initial reason for creating relativity theory. What I said means that if you change the time direction in the Shrodinger equation it will transform into a different equation. It is only invariant if you change both the time direction and the wave to its conjugate, provided of course that the hamiltonian is stationary. Which it usually is not. A Google search of "invariant equation" produces literally no matches. First of all of course it does, and second  if you need to google search this it means you know nothing about modern physics. Time is not a variable contained anywhere in the Schrodinger equation. Dude, you really should stop making a clown of yourself here. The more you argue with me on this, the stupider you will look. This is the Schrodinger equation: Hf = df/dt, where f is the wave function, H is the hamiltonian and t is time. d/dt here means partial deriviation not full deriviation, for lack of the partial derivative symbol. In the simplest cases H = P^2/2m  U, where P is the momentum operator, m is the particle mass and U is the potential energy function. 5
points
Most of modern physics studies group transform of the fundamental equations. This is another piece of gobbledegook which means literally nothing at all. Maxwell equations are invariant with respect to the Lorenz teansform ALL EQUATIONS ARE INVARIANT BECAUSE THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MAKES THEM EQUATIONS (I.E. LAWS) IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU ABOMINABLY STUPID, KNOWNOTHING IDIOT. God, I wish I could ban your stupid ass from this thread. Fact Machine, fancy booting this moron? 1
point
1
point
You've been attacking me for three hours straight on two different accounts You say that because you have nothing else to say for your blatant stupidity. You can't prove it and we can go to the admins to confirm who here has multiple accounts, which is you, again. On the other hand, when we see your little minions online up voting you and down voting others, its a cinch to read the posts of those accounts, all literally identical to your posts. Damning evidence. 1
point
Simply explain to us how an equation remains the same if it changes. Some differential equations remain the same if you for example change the sign of time, i.e. put t instead of t. This is true for classical mechanics with nondissipative forces. But it's not true for electrodynamics nor is it true for quantum mechanics. Schrodinger equation changes sign on the right side if you reverse the time direction. That's all I was saying. The equation has a different symmetry, it's more complicated. 2
points
Some differential equations remain the same if you for example change the sign of time, i.e. put t instead of t. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 1) Explain to us how time ever has a negative value. 2) Explain to us why you think an equation changes because one of the variables is a variable. LOL. Fuck off. You're pathetic bronto. Dumb fucking Jew. Explain to us how time ever has a negative value. Because you're looking into the system's past. And because nothing prevents you from substituting t by t in an equation. To difficult for dummies, I understamd. I can't explain physics to someone who is impersonating an ape. And I'm not even saying this as an insult. That's actually how you're behaving. Your only hope would be that FM deletes this debate. Explain to us why you think an equation changes because one of the variables is a variable. Have you ever solved a differential equation? Ever heard of a substitution? If not then shut the fuck up with your idiotic NARCO questions. Dumb fucking Jew. Go find a gas chamber you peace of narco retard. 1
point
Because you're looking into the system's past. A system's past ends at zero you impossibly stupid troglodyte. When time continues to move past zero you are describing a state before the system even existed. Watching you spend hours attempting to dig yourself out of your own ignorance is borderline hypnotising. To difficult for dummies, I understamd. Too difficult. Understand. Have you ever solved a differential equation? Do you understand what a variable is? That was rhetorical of course, because evidently you have no idea what a variable is. The value of a variable can be anything. It doesn't change the equation you walking nightmare of human stupidity. A system's past ends at zero Oh really. So the system was created at a magical point 0? Really, Nom, you should stop trying to look more of an imbecille than you already are. When time continues to move past zero you are describing a state before the system even existed. LOL. Any quantum system has always existed, this is a direct consequence of the fact that median values evolve according to classical laws. Not that a dork would understand. Do you understand what a variable is? That was rhetorical of course, because evidently you have no idea what a variable is. The value of a variable can be anything. It doesn't change the equation NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE VALUES OF VARIABLES. If that's how you understood what I wrote then you are even more retarded than I thought. You could be a great actor playing a retard. One of the best. Hint: What do you think a Lorenz transform is? 2
points
Oh really. I shit thee not. So the system was created at a magical point 0? Please explain what you find to be magical about the number zero. Are you saying it shows you tricks? Eny quantum system has always existed Lmao. So you've never heard of the big bang? That's nice. Grab a seat. After this I'll teach you why boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THE VALUES OF VARIABLES Um, excuse me Mr Donkey Brain, but you are talking about the values of variables. Time is a variable, and on that basis you tried to convince me that equations change when variables have negative values. I am still stunned at your actual level of stupidity. Please explain what you find to be magical about the number zero. Are you saying it shows you tricks? Are you talking to yourself there Nom? It was you making the claim that a quantum system cannot exist before t=0, wasn't it? Lmao. So you've never heard of the big bang? Don't mix general relativity into this. We're talking specifically about quantum mechanics. and on that basis you tried to convince me that equations change when variables have negative values. OK, now I understand that my calling you a retard wasn't an insult at all. No idiot, that's not what I was saying. That's an imbecille's understanding of what I said. Before you read what a variable substitution in a differential equation is, I won't be discussing this with you. 1
point
It was you making the claim that a quantum system cannot exist before t=0, wasn't it? What does that have to do with your claim that the number zero has magic powers? Don't mix general relativity into this. Just.... What.... The.... Fuck... Bronto, are you even aware that the universe used to be very small? That's an imbecille's understanding of what I said. It's literally, objectively what you wrote. My sincere apologies that you're so astonishingly stupid. What does that have to do with your claim that the number zero has magic powers? I've never made that claim. But you are obviously imbuing that number with magical powers, since you're the one making the claim a system cannot exist before t=0? It's literally, objectively what you wrote. No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=t. Introducing another variable into the equation which is a function of the former variable. That's what a substitution is. It has nothing to do with specific values. 3
points
I've never made that claim. You made it less than ten minutes ago you walking farce: So the system was created at a magical point 0? I've never made that claim? Really? Bwahahahaha! you are obviously imbuing that number with magical powers Oh, so now I'M the one saying the number zero is magic? Yeah, that makes sense buddy. You make a claim, deny it, make it again, and then try to attribute it to me. Sound reasoning there buddy. Did you "borrow" it from Hitler? I think you did, didn't you? No, I was literally writing about a substitution t1=t T1? Do you mean T you stupid cunt? T x 1 is fucking T. Holy Christ are you actually on meth tonight? Ahahahahaha! Shut up you laughably ignorant retard. A time machine does not stop being a time machine just because it uses quantum particles instead of human beings. Get out you pointless window licker. Ahahahahahahahaaha ...........when your stupidity is pointed out to you what do you do clutch at straws like the retard you are , you posted up a piece like an excited schoolgirl yesterday and you didn’t even bother reading the article , the commentator actually said in his own world “it’s not time travel as we understand it in the traditional sense “ This is why you banned me and others for correcting you , demonstrating this is yet another subject you know fuck all about Time machine a definition for dummies ...... Time travel is the concept of movement between certain points in time, analogous to movement between different points in space by an object or a person, typically using a hypothetical device known as a time machine. Time travel is a widelyrecognized concept in philosophy and fiction. Wikipedia You made it less than ten minutes ago I never did and it's obvious to anyone reading this thread. I've never made that claim? Really? Bwahahahaha! You do understand the difference between asking a quesiton and making a claim? Your idiotic statement "A system's past ends at zero " is equivalent to imbuing t=0 with magical powers, so I was asking you to confirm your idiocy. Which you were afraid to do for some reason. T1? Do you mean T you stupid cunt? T x 1 is fucking T Anyone who isn't a total halfwit would understand that t1 is a different variable name, not t miltiplied by one. Your retarded clown act is getting tedious. 5
points
5
points
Dude, you really should stop making a clown of yourself here. The more you argue with me on this, the stupider you will look. This is the Schrodinger equation: Hf = df/dt Well, here is a PhD in Physics who says it is something completely different: https://www.physlink.com/education/ Tell me more about how stupid I look for clarifying how wrong you are with proof from an expert. Inputting the formula "Hf = df/dt" into Google again brings back absolutely zero matches, so strange how "Schrodinger's equation" apparently appears nowhere on the internet, you thick bastard. https://www.physlink.com/education/ I don't have the fucking symbols here to write it properly. On the left is the Hamilton operator applied to the wave function. On the right is the partial derivative of the wave function over time. multiplied by ih by the way. It's been some time since I've done quantum mechanics. 5
points
I don't have the fucking symbols here to write it properly. Oh, so you thought you'd write it incorrectly? Makes perfect sense, when of course you could have just simply linked to it if you had any idea what it actually was. I'll repeat what I said originally to see if it penetrates your astonishingly stupid, lying skull this time. Schrodinger's equation has nothing to do with time. It works regardless of whether time exists or not. When time is factored into Schrodinger's equation it is because time must be factored into every equation which intends to give a realistic outcome to any given experiment. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about because you are an idiot who very evidently does not. You are inventing gobbledegook terminology like "invariant equations" because you are a stupid bastard on the internet who thinks he can con other stupid bastards on the internet into believing he is not a stupid bastard on the internet. Oh, so you thought you'd write it incorrectly? No you idiot, I didn't want to bother with the fonts. But any physicist would recognize it in the form I've used regardless of whether I'm using traditional symbols or not. Here is the equation in the usual notation, for a single particle. I won't even charge you anything Uψ –(h^2)∆ψ/2m = ih∂ψ/∂t Schrodinger's equation has nothing to do with time As obvious from the above equation, it has eveything to do with time. It's actually the law which governs the evolution of the wave function over time. Stop trying to be a total moron. 6
points
No you idiot You just literally admitted you wrote it incorrectly. Why am I an idiot simply because you can't keep your own story straight for longer than a sentence at a time? I didn't want to bother with the fonts LOL. Oh, I SEE!! You got the Schrodinger equation completely fucking WRONG because you didn't want to bother with the fonts?? Sound argument. But any physicist would recognize it in the form I've used You haven't used it in ANY FORM you fucking idiot, because you got it COMPLETELY wrong. You tried to post the timedependent version of the equation but you don't understand algebraic language and thought you'd simply omit all the squiggly little symbols and hope nobody notices!!! Ahahaha! You pathetically sad little twat. You're an embarrassment to yourself. Here is the equation in the usual notation. I've literally just posted the equation for you because you got it completely wrong. Trying to continue the argument by ignoring that fact and trying again to get the equation right just really cements home the level of fucking idiot I am dealing with. As obvious from the above equation, it has eveything to do with time. Oh, that's just simply a classic piece of shitposting. You are WRONG: But what does this solution actually mean? It doesn't give you a precise location for your particle at a given time, so it doesn't give you the trajectory of a particle over time. Rather it's a function which, at a given time gives you a value. https://plus.maths.org/content/ EXACTLY like I just POINTED OUT to your STUPID ASS. You just literally admitted you wrote it incorrectly I literally did no such thing. You got the Schrodinger equation completely fucking WRONG because you didn't want to bother with the fonts?? it was completely right. In fact, it's a totally equivalent, but better way of writing the equation. Hψ = ih∂ψ/∂t I was using f instead of the usual Greek ψ, only a total ignoramus would be mislead by this. You tried to post the timedependent version of the equation but you don't understand algebraic language and thought you'd simply omit all the squiggly little symbols No you idiot, the form with the hamiltonian operator is the preffered one because it applies to all representations. The one I wrote is in coordinate representation, you can also write it in momentum or an infinite amount of other representations. But since you know absolutely 0 you couldn't understand that in my formula H = U –(h^2)∆/2m, so these 2 equations are absolutely equivalent. And you still have no idea what the equation means, do you? Oh, that's just simply a classic piece of shitposting. You are WRONG: But what does this solution actually mean? It doesn't give you a precise location for your particle at a given time t, so it doesn't give you the trajectory of a particle over time. Rather it's a function which, at a given time t gives you a value NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PRECISE LOCATIONS YOU IMBECILE. This is not how quantum mechanics works. ψ(x,y,z,t) is a function whose module is equal to the probability density of a quantum system. In case of a free single particle as the particle "moves" the function changes over time and so does it's mathematical expectation and all of the integrals which represent the average values. This is how a quantum system evolves over time. EXACTLY like I just POINTED OUT to your STUPID ASS. The only thing you just did is point a finger into your ass. 5
points
I literally did no such thing. Proof you are a liar: I didn't want to bother with the fonts. The "fonts" being all the algebraic symbols you left out. it was completely right. Oh, OK. So it was completely right but just happens to appear NOWHERE ON THE ENTIRE INTERNET???? Ahahahahaha! You pathetic little moron. You're so stupid and dishonest it's like I'm at a comedy club. Sure buddy, "Any physicist would recognise it in the form you wrote it", which is why NO OTHER PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS EVER WRITTEN IT THAT WAY!!!!! Fuck off, you retarded fucking idiot. It's written that way in many modern textbooks on quantum mechanics. What retards like you don't understand is that it's a differential equation in partial derivatives and any such equation can be written in operator form, just like I did. Here's just one link: http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/ NO OTHER PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS EVER WRITTEN IT THAT WAY!!!!! I suspect no other person in the world has disgraced himself like you have in this thread. You have literally displayed the intellectual capacity of an ape. 5
points
It's written that way in many modern textbooks on quantum mechanics. LOL. In which case it would be written that way somewhere on the internet you LAUGHABLY stupid prick. Here's just one link: http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/ The equation Hf = df/dt appears ZERO times in the link you just posted you LAUGHABLY stupid prick. 5
points
Do you think people are stupid? As we watch this all unfold, we are seeing one person in particular is very stupid, he believes the Russians built a time machine, who insults and bans others from his threads who try to explain why the Russians didn't build a time machine. And, you go on and on and on.... Beautiful! But obviously you are the one attacking me with both your BigOats account and your Goldtop account. This one is good, let's break it down. First, you say "obviously" which is startling considering there's little that is obvious between our accounts, if anything. My education has not been in Physics, although it's my favorite science subject and I try to keep up. Now, if you want to see something obvious, that would be BigOats education, which is obviously in Physics. I can understand pretty much everything he's been talking about so far (still struggles with Hamiltonians) and he is completely schooling you but you don't even know it. The equation Hf = df/dt appears ZERO times in the link you just posted Once you're cured from methanol poisoning you might want to take another look. I was using f instead of ψ, and it's the same equation except for the constant factor ih. My version: Hf= ∂f/∂t On the site: Hψ = ih∂ψ/∂t Yes I forgot the factor ih at first but corected myself in 1 minute. But it's just a constant and doesn't change the structure of the equation. Nor does it change my initial premise that the equation isn't invariant with regard to time inversion. So all of your statements like "Shcrodinger equation has nothing to do with time"  are the ramblings of a RETARDED APE. 5
points
2
points
That's something only an imbecille would search for Only an imbecile would call someone an imbecile and misspell imbecile. You obviously have some form of psychosis, and that is evident to anybody reading this exchange. I am simply stunned by the level of stupidity you are displaying. Stunned. You obviously have some form of psychosis, and that is evident to anybody reading this exchange. Ok so shall we make a debate about this? The phrases 1."Shrodinger equation has nothing to do with time" 2. "Time is not a variable contained anywhere in the Schrodinger equation" 2. "If the Schrodinger equation isn't invariant (i.e. doesn't "never change") then it isn't an equation in the first place" 3. "ALL EQUATIONS ARE INVARIANT BECAUSE THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MAKES THEM EQUATIONS (I.E. LAWS)" Are a clear indication that you're a RETARDED APE. The fact that you can't recognize an equation if a different symbol is used for the wave function proves that you're even more stupid than a retarded ape. 2
points
Ok shall we make a debate about this Should you simply learn to go away when you are proven to be an utterly absurd liar? 1."Shrodinger equation has nothing to do with time" That is not a matter of public opinion you jabbering goddamned imbecile. If the Schrodinger equation isn't invariant I'm not going around in circles with you simply because you are too stupid and dishonest to read what I explained to you the first time. "The Schrodenger (sic) equation isn't invariant See above. "ALL EQUATIONS ARE INVARIANT BECAUSE THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MAKES THEM EQUATIONS (I.E. LAWS) Finally you have gotten something right, so it's a pity that you are actually quoting me. Are a clear indication that you're a RETARDED APE. Why would anybody take anything you say seriously at this point? They just wouldn't, would they? That is not a matter of public opinion Shrodinger equation is a linear differential equation with time derivative on the right side. Its solution gives the wave function at any given time based on its value at a certain moment. To say that it has nothing to do with time is complete and utter idiocy. I'm not going around in circles with you simply because you are too stupid and dishonest to read what I explained to you the first time. Idiot, the only thing you have expalined is now fucking dorked you are. Of course the equation isn't invariant with respect to time inversion. Just fucking subsitute t instead of t in the derivative and the right side will change sign. It only takes 1 second to check this. Finally you have gotten something right, so it's a pity that you are quoting me directly. No you moron, differential equations are not invariant with respect to all transforms. Maxwell's equations are invariant with respect to the Lorenz transform but are not invariant with respect to the Gallilean transform. THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY THEORY WAS CREATED. Now show us some more tricks you retarded ape. Parrot what I say. 2
points
Shrodinger equation is a linear differential equation But you literally just copied this line from the Wikipedia page: The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ And then added your own retarded nonsense onto the end: with time derivative on the right side. When the actual next part of the Wikipedia definition is: The Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation that describes the wave function or state function of a quantummechanical system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Which is what I said it was four hours ago, before you began spamming me with idiocy. Its solution gives the wave function at any given time based on its value at a certain moment. To say that it has nothing to do with time is complete and utter idiocy. I've literally proven to you that it has nothing to do with time and you are continuing to pretend otherwise, so how do you suggest I proceed? If you are simply going to ignore it when I prove that what you are saying is nonsense, then how is that a debate? "Complete and utter idiocy" as you put it, is somehow being stupid enough not to comprehend that time can very feasibly have a value of zero. The Wikipedia page LITERALLY explains that there are two versions of the Schrodinger equation, dependent on whether time is a factor or not, so you therefore CANNOT get much more STUPID than continuing to deny it when the proof is in black and white staring at your idiot face. Idiot, the only thing you have expalined is now fucking dorked you are But you are literally just calling me names and messing up your spelling. But you literally just copied this line from the Wikipedia page: Unlike you I've solved this equation many times with different conditions and have no need to look anything in wikipedia. And then added your own retarded nonsense onto the end: with time derivative on the right side. Yes you idiot that's what it fucking is. That's an expansion of the wiki definition which is too ambiguous. It was made by me so that a retard like you could understand that the equation contains time explicitly and the derivative is of first order. If it was second order it would not change sign. Which is what I said it was four hours ago, before you began spamming me with idiocy. The things you call "idiocy" is actual science. The Wikipedia page LITERALLY explains that there are two versions of the Schrodinger equation, dependent on whether time is a factor or not Idiot, there is only one version of the equation and time is always a factor. The version which you think is one "without time" is an equation which you get from the Schrodinger equation by substituting ψ1 = ψexp(Et) for modes*. For conveniece sake it's also called the Scrodinger equation but apes like you are not suppoesed to understand that. ALL THESE SOLUTIONS DEPEND ON TIME EXPLICITLY THROUGH THE FACTOR exp(Et)where E is the energy. the proof is in black and white you have only proven that you're an imbecille tyring to gain some colut by quoting wikipedia and failing miserably at it. The reason for this is that you're a narco ape. 1
point
Unlike you I've solved this equation many times Ahahahahahahaha! with different conditions You mean like before the equation existed? Lol Yes you idiot that's what it fucking is. The very Wikipedia page you stole your opening half a sentence from proves that it has nothing to do with time, because it very clearly illustrates time independent versions of the equation. If you are too dishonest to admit it then there isn't a lot I can do about that outside of recommending others check the Wikipedia page for themselves to ascertain that I am correct. 1
point
Idiot, there is only one version of the equation and time is always a factor. LOL. Timedependent equation Timeindependent equation You should learn to actually research issues rather than recite wikipedia like a monkey. The "timeindependent equation" section talks about stationary solutions and each of these depends on time explicitly with the factor exp(Et). You didn't find that basic information in your wiki source so you went on to conclude that the wave function is actually independent of time. Which is of course false. 1
point
2
points
Your ignorance of the laws of physics Which you clearly know nothing about considering I've never talked about physics. But, getting back to your claim, you believe the Russians built a time machine. You are dumbass. Amarel, the pointless idiot who got banned for inventing his own version of a story he didn't even read? He may have done the same thing as me, looked up the paper and read it rather than pull some headline off a pop site and start boasting like a side show clown, which is what you did. Friggin hilarious and absolutely fucking wonderful to watch you squirm again. You're simply a butthurt imbecile still lamenting over the fact that you were publicly exposed as a liar. So much for your understanding of the education system, but so far you've been caught lying with multiple alt accounts to down vote me and upvote yourself, now you think the Russians have built a time machine, all this within a couple days. Makes you look like the biggest hypocritical idiot on the planet, dude. I can't wait to see more of this entertainment from you. I'll be sure to point out whatever new idiocy you bring to the table. A time machine... hahahahaha! 5
points
Which you clearly know nothing about considering I've never talked about physics. You LITERALLY just attempted to mock a physics article I posted last night you insanely stupid, dishonest little moron. But, getting back to your claim, you believe the Russians built a time machine. You are dumbass. I didn't make that claim you stupid fucking IDIOT. I quoted the article directly, which used the wording "time machine", so looks like you are the one of us who is the DUMBASS, does it not? READ IT, you IDIOT TROLL: The “time machine” described in the journal Scientific Reports consists of a rudimentary quantum computer made up of electron “qubits”. You LITERALLY just attempted to mock a physics article I posted No, you posted that from some pop site and I am mocking YOU because you believe the Russians built a time machine, you idiot dumbass < (that was mocking you) I quoted the article directly Of course, you did, most likely because you believed they built it and rushed to post it here thinking you were some physics genius who now needed his ego stroked. That's why folks who know something about science would seriously question an article like that, especially because it came from a pop site and was NOT a peer reviewed paper < (Do you know what that is?) But, you blew your wad all over the place and now YOU are the retard. READ IT, you IDIOT TROLL I did read it, then I started laughing my head off at you as you had posted to Amarel and had already banned him, yet he knew was he talking about. YOU did not. Hence, you banned him for making you look like an ass. It was friggin hilarious, coffee damn near flew out my noise as I laughed hysterically at the hypocritical douche bag making an ass of himself right in front of me and everyone else. Brilliant! 2
points
1
point
The Independent is a British national newspaper. And, you are the complete moron who bought the headlines hook, line and sinker. You must believe everything you read on the internet. Have you tried reading the actual paper on the subject... oh wait, you didn't, you went for the sensationalist headlines. Hahahaha! 1
point
Says the guy who literally just called me a dumbass for quoting a science article from The Independent That's because you have shown yourself to be an idiot, by quoting an online newspaper owned by a Russian oligarch rather than the peer reviewed paper itself. You are a complete moron for doing this and then sank even lower when you banned the guy trying to explain it to you. Once again: "You Dumbass" 3
points
That's because you have shown yourself to be an idiot LOLOLOLOL. Says the guy who literally claimed to have a degree in songwriting from Berkeley, and then spent the next three hours telling a variety of different lies when he found out that Berkeley doesn't teach degrees in songwriting!!!! Your opinion is worth literally nothing because you are a stupid lying bastard whose highest pursuit in life is purposefully trying to antagonise his intellectual superiors. 2
points
Your opinion is worth literally nothing because you are a stupid lying bastard whose highest pursuit in life is purposefully trying to antagonise his intellectual superiors. That's a fair assessment. I read that conversation you mentioned. It's fairly incontestable that you're dealing with a retard. 3
points
you are a stupid lying bastard whose highest pursuit in life is purposefully trying to antagonise his intellectual superiors You are showing yourself to be an intellectual bozo who reads headlines in newspapers and immediately jumps on this forum, boasting how smart he is with physics and makes an ass of himself. Then, he orders up his alt accounts to down vote those who laugh at him and up votes himself, pretending he's our "intellectual superior". Fucking hilarious. 1
point
You are showing yourself to be an intellectual bozo According to a guy who claimed to have a degree in songwriting from a college which does not teach degrees in songwriting. Why are you even wasting your time? Do you think your childish verbal assaults are being taken seriously by anybody? Do you think your childish verbal assaults are being taken seriously by anybody? I think everyone here is watching you make an ass of yourself while also tossing out verbal assaults. No one here is taking you seriously, they are all trying to explain why you're a dumbass, but you just keep hitting foul balls out of the park and we keep laughing. Love it! 0
points
1
point
1
point
2
points
There is a careful consideration of how stupid Leftist are and that careful analysis is carefully prepared ! I personally view leftism as the economic antidote to the vehemently toxic ideology of consumer capitalism which has culminated in us denying our own climate science and mislabelling unprovoked invasions as acts of defence. But that's just me. 6
points
5
points
The market for road fuels in the UK amounts to about 36.7 million tonnes per year, equivalent to just under 46 billion litres. Demand for road transport fuels equates to 44 million litres of petrol and a little over 81 million litres of diesel per day. You got a real disconnect there stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 