[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

nope how google ranks webs its a mistery i wathced on tv that traffic influenced a lot

If that is true, the person who stated that is incorrect. You claim you question everything but you accept that TV show as FACT! Why have you not researched it? You can find the answer easily if you take a few minutes. Yet you refuse. Why is that?

We all know the answer but please enlighten us anyway.

Originally Posted by raaaid

so to my question if force of friction is dependant of surface your answer is yes and no both

I have clearly shown the answer and even asked what part you don't understand. In response you just regurgitate the same garbage you have been spouting.

Why won't you respond to my specific question?

Originally Posted by raaaid

tell me how could have einstein accounted for sun atmosphere star light bending being this 15 time bigger than gravitational lensing

how did eisntein account for atmospheric starlight bending

is howed you one link that explain this wasnt account till the 90s show me one where shows he did account for this eeffect

the balls in your side since every knows he couldnt know what the sun atmosphere was like

I already said I don't know the specifics of the experiment. Furthermore, I have NEVER stated that he did account for it.

I have no interest in finding out the specifics of the experiment. If you want to know, YOU go find out.

You are arguing a point THAT I NEVER MADE.

Originally Posted by raaaid

you could save words like drug adict damged mind, more stupid than a plant

you know too well thats what a child does when losing an argument

And you could have avoided calling engineers and scientists stupid. You could have avoided calling everyone that did not believe you stupid. But you didn't.

Originally Posted by raaaid

galileo tomamas and culomb and my teacher have a very clear answer for this:

is force of friction(not coeficient of friction) dpendant of surface?


a)yes
b)no
c)yes and no

wrong answer will be 3.333333..... negative points

You are incapable of understanding the context of their answers or even of your question. That...is why you fail.

Besides, I already answered this one above.

Originally Posted by raaaid

outlaw you brough up an interesting point:

i have a damage mind cause i take my ramblings as FACT

wel in this thread i havemention i DIDNT KNOW if relativity was true or not, in fact in the graviational lensing or not happening is the key on causality, although this was brought down imo by INSTANT quantum entanglement

so im QUESTIONING relativity

while you take relativity as FACT

who has the damaged mind then?

me who question and realizes i know nothing for sure

or you who takes OTHERS experiences and stories as FACT

You will NEVER be able to experimentally determine ANYTHING so, by your logic, NOTHING WILL EVER BE TRUE.

I take relativity as fact not because of an experiment in 1919, but because of recent experiments. You act as if nothing has been done since 1919.

And to reiterate, I NEVER stated that the 1919 experiment(s) took refraction into account.

--Outlaw.