BigOats's Waterfall
No, you are mistaken. Not everyone has their head and pair of eyes inside their ass, such as in your case. Otherwise you would have understood that insulting someone is not the same as "disagreeing" with them.
Trump shill who will tell any amount of lies in support of his fuhrer is very much on topic.
The topic of my conversation with Mingi was Trump's alleged involvement in the central park five case. You must have posioned yourself with methanol and gone selectively blind once again.
No buddy, you got it wrong as usual. I wasn't cursing you out for disagreeing with me. You didn't even address the subject matter. Instead, you insulted me because you were triggred by my response to Mingi. That's why I told you to fuck off.
Mingi, you are only illustrating the problem. Every time I see someone accuse Trump of some maliscious deeds in the past, they quote an article which provides no proof whatsoever of said allegations. Instead it offers an emotional message which is meant to replace the proof. Accroding to your own link, the only "crime" comitted by Trump in the Central Park Five case, was publishing a newspaper announcement which called for capital punishment. The announcment didn't even mention that specific case. The actual prosecutor who had indicted these youths was Lisa Fairstein, and there is no evidence whatsoever linking her to Donald Trump. If there had been so much as a shred of evidence, it would have already been made public by Trump's numerous rivals.
Which does a nice job of contradicting
You're a retard if you think I was contradicting anything. Particle physics is not plain classical quantum mechanics, it's relativistic quantum mechanics and that does not appear in the research paper. Not that you've read it of course. Since you're a google expert you don't need to bother yourself with actually reading the reasearch you yap your mouth about.
Your empty rhetoric is pointless because the entire website saw you post the equation t = -t1. You can't take that back.
Why the hell would I take it back? Your insistance on being a total retard does not mean I need to retract anything.
weasel your way out of it by spamming the phrase "simple variable substitution
What???? You fucking idiot, it is a simple variable substitution. I even made debate on here to explain what substitutions are: https://www.createdebate.
Even a child would have understood what I meant by now. But you seem to be taking pride in having the cognitive abilities of a retard.
every person on this website with a grade school understanding of maths is laughing at your pure, unadulterated stupidity
I'll make another debate to see if this is true. A debate you will surely evade, just like you're pretending to be selectively blind in this thread.
You're trying to discredit my argument by agreeing with it.
I was agreeing specifically with your statement that time reversal can effectively take place in particle physics. Not that this has anything to do with the "experiment" you seem to be so excited with.
After completely discrediting yourself
You have no idea what mathematical equations are. That's OK for a journalist I guess, but your attempts to find what you think is a "mistake" are fairly idiotic and not even funny anymore.
Are you claiming to be telepathic now
No just reading other user's post on this site.
why that equation is mathematically impossible.
So time reversal in equations is mathematically impossible for you? This means you know nothing about math.
t = -t1 substitutes nothing. It gives you two different values for t.
It does no such thing. It means we are introducing a new variable t1 which is bound with the variable t as described. Writing "it gives two different values for t" could have been considered plain illiteracy had I not explained to you what the substitution means. Now it's just plain retarded and you're not even shying away from that, in fact seem to be proud of it.
In fact, anti-particles like the positron can mathematically be considered to be ordinary particles moving back through time.
Finally you'we written someting relevant. But this has nothing to do with the recent "experiment" which wasn't even using quantum relativistic electrodynamics as is obvious from the research paper text. The wave function they were using is the ordinary wave function from classical quantum mechanics, not Dirac's 4-function from relativistic quantum mechanics.
