Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #581643

Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same
>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model
>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how
>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with
>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the
>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in
>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of
>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi-
>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is
>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and
>>>>> wide knowledge base.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on
>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful
>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary
>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a
>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful.
>>>>
>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I
>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no
>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about.
>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read
>>> physicists think.
>>
>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're
>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet.



> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who
> have done a little reading, aren’t they? 

I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of 
the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in 
its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your 
statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above 
I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to 
have become a bothersome jibe.

Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage 
that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge 
about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does 
have enough context to provide some fodder.

 > I’ve heard it also said, “Better
> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and
> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking?

Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will 
note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes 
stepping over some boundaries I never cross.

>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative.
>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their
>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a
>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO.
>>
>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html>
>>
>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can
>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please
>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient
>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes.
> 
> Yes.

Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both
questions. That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with
mental aberrations.

Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a
returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. You therefore
have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable
posters in this newsgroup.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 10:38 -0500
  Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000
    Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 14:47 -0500
      Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 19:53 +0000
        Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 15:18 -0500
          Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 20:57 +0000
            Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 18:50 -0500
              Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 14:29 +0000
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-01 16:22 -0500
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 14:37 -0700
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:37 +0000
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 18:20 -0700
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 01:46 +0000
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:02 -0700
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:55 -0700
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 13:41 +0000
                Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's the greatest imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 07:20 -0700
                Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 00:35 -0400
        Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 22:15 -0700

csiph-web