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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #594645 > unrolled thread

Where is the (real) error

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-03 22:17 +0000
    Re: Where is the (real) error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-11-04 00:19 +0100
      Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-03 23:54 +0000
        Re: Where is the (real) error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-11-04 01:11 +0100
          Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 00:19 +0000
            Re: Where is the (real) error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-11-04 01:25 +0100
              Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 00:43 +0000
                Re: Where is the (real) error Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-11-04 08:30 +0100
    Re: Where is the (real) error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 16:57 -0700
      Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 00:14 +0000
        Re: Where is the (real) error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 17:45 -0700
          Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 01:09 +0000
            Re: Where is the (real) error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-03 18:49 -0700
    Re: Where is the (real) error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-04 11:58 +0200
      Re: Where is the (real) error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 03:20 -0700
      Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 12:32 +0000
        Re: Where is the (real) error Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 06:16 -0700
          Re: Where is the (real) error Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 06:18 -0700
        Re: Where is the (real) error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-11-04 18:14 +0200
          Re: Where is the (real) error Richard Hachel <richard.hachel@invalid.fr> - 2022-11-04 16:21 +0000
            Re: Where is the (real) error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 11:00 -0700
              Re: Where is the (real) error Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> - 2022-11-04 18:10 +0000
                Re: Where is the (real) error JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-04 14:23 -0700
                Re: Where is the (real) error Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-11-04 14:49 -0700
              Origin of sci.physics.relativity Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-11-05 17:30 -0500
                Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 17:04 -0700
                  Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-11-05 20:37 -0500
                    Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2022-11-05 18:48 -0700
                  Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-05 21:06 -0700
                    Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-11-06 12:03 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#594717

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 04/11/2022 à 17:14, Mikko a écrit : 
> > On 2022-11-04 12:32:05 +0000, Richard Hachel said: 
> > 
> >> Relativists in general, unfortunately, are very arrogant, and don't 
> >> even understand that sometimes they are outdone by me. 
> >> 
> >> This arrogance is of the order of the religious doctrine "We can't be 
> >> wrong, and if we were wrong, it's not that asshole Doctor Hachel who 
> >> will teach us". 
> > 
> > Don't generalize too much, but it is true and obvious that you are so 
> > arrogant. It wouldn't matter if you were right, but sometinmes you aren't. 
> > 
> > In this group everyone is presumed ignorant and stupid until proven 
> > otherwise. 
> > 
> > Mikko
> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've always 
> had a hard time understanding why. 

It's just past experience.  I've been on this group off and on since its
inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of
the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like
small children.  This has been very characteristic.

So, yes, your point is welk taken in the sense that because of that the
standard reaction to a "critic" has been strongly negative (call it a
case of "relativistic profiling" :-) ).  But this approach is simply virtually
infallible.  It's just the way the facts in the matter are. 

> Many people questioned by this question that I asked them gave me the same 
> answer: "Richard, you do not consider human nature enough".

Yes, there is a common emotional thread among almost all "critics" which
does resemble a common emotional thread found in almost all children. 
It goes like this:

1. "X seems wrong to me",
2. "Therefore, it's wrong",
3. "And if hundreds of thousands of experts for more than 100 years
disagree, then they are wrong, I don't understand their proofs anyway
(which makes them wrong)",
4. "And I don't need to study X in order to know all of the above."

In other words, the very noticeable inability to face one's shortcomings is
both childlike and very characteristic.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594720

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've
>> always had a hard time understanding why.
> 
> It's just past experience.  I've been on this group off and on since its
> inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of
> the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like
> small children.  This has been very characteristic.

try again. You find tons of errors in the mathematics of nasa gravitational 
boost spaceship, but nothing in einstine. You are lying. At your age.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594742

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 11:10:58 AM UTC-7, Stefan Russo wrote:
> JanPB wrote: 
> 
> > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote: 
> >> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've 
> >> always had a hard time understanding why. 
> > 
> > It's just past experience. I've been on this group off and on since its 
> > inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of 
> > the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like 
> > small children. This has been very characteristic.
> try again. You find tons of errors in the mathematics of nasa gravitational 
> boost spaceship, but nothing in einstine. You are lying. At your age.

What's "einstine"?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594748

In sci.physics Stefan Russo <ftfr@urstsoto.ee> wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 9:21:05 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
>>> Not just in this group. I think the phenomenon is general, and I've
>>> always had a hard time understanding why.
>> 
>> It's just past experience.  I've been on this group off and on since its
>> inception (around 1995 IIRC) and the fact is that about 99% or more of
>> the critics are uninformed, and 99% of those 99% are also arrogant like
>> small children.  This has been very characteristic.
> 
> try again. You find tons of errors in the mathematics of nasa gravitational 
> boost spaceship, but nothing in einstine. You are lying. At your age.

That is what one would expect as einstine is a 5 minute documentry video
directed by Eric Siegel in 1968.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594823 — Origin of sci.physics.relativity

On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995 
> IIRC)

I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
:) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.

Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my
debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be
terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time). I learned later
that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not
invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for
me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was
not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did
get a non-AT&T email for use around here.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594827 — Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote: 
> > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995 
> > IIRC)
> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell 
> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over 
> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of 
> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since 
> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity 
> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity 
> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics. 

I joined Usenet in 1985.  The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
not exist until mid-90s.  What happened was that sci.physics at the time
would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks
and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.
So someone decided to create sci.physics.relativity simply as a means
of deflecting the crank traffic from sci.physics.  I remember not having
sci.physics.relativity and then having it as a new newsgroup.  But maybe
I'm remembering it wrong.  Not sure if there exists a database that contains
the full history with first posts to s.p.r.

> Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my 
> debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be 
> terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time). 

I had a similar experience with Archimedes Plutonium (primo voto
Ludwig Pohlmann, secundo voto Ludwig van Logwig, tertio voto
Ludwig Plutonium) who e-mailed the execs at my then-employer
"alerting" them about me.

> I learned later 
> that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not 
> invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for 
> me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was 
> not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did 
> get a non-AT&T email for use around here.

Sometimes one has to be careful with outright nuts.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594832 — Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity

On 11/5/2022 7:04 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
>>> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
>>> IIRC)
>> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
>> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
>> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
>> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
>> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
>> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
>> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
> 
> I joined Usenet in 1985.  The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> not exist until mid-90s.  What happened was that sci.physics at the time
> would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks
> and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.

The early 1980's was before the great renaming. The physics newsgroup 
then was called "net.physics."

> So someone decided to create sci.physics.relativity simply as a means
> of deflecting the crank traffic from sci.physics.  I remember not having
> sci.physics.relativity and then having it as a new newsgroup.  But maybe
> I'm remembering it wrong.  Not sure if there exists a database that contains
> the full history with first posts to s.p.r.
> 
>> Personal note: sometime later a crackpot here got so incensed with my
>> debunking his claims that as a shareholder of AT&T he demanded that I be
>> terminated (I was using a Bell Labs email at the time).
> 
> I had a similar experience with Archimedes Plutonium (primo voto
> Ludwig Pohlmann, secundo voto Ludwig van Logwig, tertio voto
> Ludwig Plutonium) who e-mailed the execs at my then-employer
> "alerting" them about me.
> 
>> I learned later
>> that an executive 'in camera' meeting was held, to which I was not
>> invited, and in which David Ritchie (of UNIX and C fame) stood up for
>> me, explaining that everything I had said was mainstream physics. I was
>> not terminated, and only indirectly heard about that meeting, but did
>> get a non-AT&T email for use around here.
> 
> Sometimes one has to be careful with outright nuts.

Hence my reveal my true identity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594835 — Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity

On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 6:37:29 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 11/5/2022 7:04 PM, JanPB wrote: 
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> >> On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote: 
> >>> I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995 
> >>> IIRC) 
> >> I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell 
> >> Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over 
> >> dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of 
> >> only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since 
> >> :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity 
> >> crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity 
> >> was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics. 
> > 
> > I joined Usenet in 1985. The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did 
> > not exist until mid-90s. What happened was that sci.physics at the time 
> > would now and then be invaded by threads posted by anti-Einstein cranks 
> > and they would invariably get VERY long and polluting sci.physics.
> The early 1980's was before the great renaming. The physics newsgroup 
> then was called "net.physics."

Ah, I forgot about that.  I was at a group net.audio back then.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594844 — Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> > > IIRC)
> > I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> > Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> > dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> > only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> > :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> > crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> > was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
> 
> I joined Usenet in 1985.  The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> not exist until mid-90s.  



Can yous people get your stories straight?  sci.physics.relativity the
80's or 90's???? 1982 or 1995? One of yous is WRONG...

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#594884 — Re: Origin of sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> JanPB wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 11/4/22 1:00 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > I've been on this group off and on since its inception (around 1995
> > > > IIRC)
> > > I first stumbled on sci.physics.relativity in 1982 when I joined Bell
> > > Labs. At that time it was transported via uucp (unix-to-unix copy, over
> > > dial-up modems at typically 1200 baud). Back then, USENET consisted of
> > > only a handful of U.S. universities, plus Bell Labs. It has grown since
> > > :) Apparently even in that very limited audience the relativity
> > > crackpots had disturbed sci.physics so much that sci.physics.relativity
> > > was created to quarantine the madness away from sci.physics.
> >
> > I joined Usenet in 1985.  The way I remember it, sci.physics.relativity did
> > not exist until mid-90s.
> 
> Can yous people get your stories straight?  sci.physics.relativity the
> 80's or 90's???? 1982 or 1995? One of yous is WRONG...


I suspect JanPB is WRONG since wayback machine only goes back to 1995-

https://web.archive.org/web/*/sci.physics.relativity


dat is as far jan's memory goes back...






> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web