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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #660564 > unrolled thread

Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet.

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

Contents

  Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-19 17:26 +0000
    Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-19 23:12 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 19:41 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 19:43 +0000
    Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2025-01-20 21:30 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-20 21:37 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:36 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:54 +0000
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-20 22:59 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:32 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:39 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 05:59 +0100
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 05:58 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 22:39 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-21 21:42 -0800
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 06:09 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-22 15:07 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 15:23 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 16:34 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-24 12:36 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 17:30 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 18:04 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-22 11:06 -0800
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 19:29 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-22 13:34 -0800
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 22:20 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-06-14 13:25 -0700
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-24 18:39 +0100
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-23 21:59 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-20 23:27 +0000
        Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:18 +0000
          Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-21 18:50 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-21 19:58 +0100
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:42 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:55 +0000
            Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-21 22:18 +0100
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:30 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:37 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:39 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:46 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 21:50 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:03 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:05 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:09 +0000
              Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 22:11 +0000
                Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-21 23:37 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-22 00:07 +0000
                  Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-22 09:40 +0100
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:38 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 18:43 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:44 +0000
      Re: Relativity claims to have proven that parallel lines meet. clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-21 19:46 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#660703

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:07:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 22.01.2025 07:09, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>
> Have you still not learned the difference between
> refraction and gravitational deflection, Laurence?
>
> Do you remember that you made fool of yourself when
> you claimed that Poor said that Einstein's equation
> was "a refraction formula"?
> What Poor said was:
> "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his
>   deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge
>   of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"
>
> The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a gravitational deflection formula,
> but since you think it is "a refraction formula" you can
> try to use it to explain why the Sun is seen above the horizon
> when it really is below it. Good luck! :-D
I was referring to when Poor referred to Huygens's formula, which is a
refraction formula.

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

#660705

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:07:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

> Den 22.01.2025 07:09, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>
> Have you still not learned the difference between
> refraction and gravitational deflection, Laurence?
>
> Do you remember that you made fool of yourself when
> you claimed that Poor said that Einstein's equation
> was "a refraction formula"?
> What Poor said was:
> "The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his
>   deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge
>   of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"
>
> The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a gravitational deflection formula,
> but since you think it is "a refraction formula" you can
> try to use it to explain why the Sun is seen above the horizon
> when it really is below it. Good luck! :-D
Einstein claimed to have gotten the doubling by using Huygens's
principle, which is about refraction.

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

#660709

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> >>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> >>>> meeting.
> >>>
> >>> You really don't understand any of this.
> >> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
> >> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
> >
> >
> > Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
> >
> > If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
> >
> > It is the point of perspective.
> >
> > But it is an illusion.
> >
> > Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
> >
> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
> are not perspectival or illusions.


Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
met...then they are not parallel lines.

parallel lines never meet.


Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet????  Or some schnook or
schmuck?


-- 
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]

#660710

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
>>>> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
>>>
>>> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
>>>
>>> It is the point of perspective.
>>>
>>> But it is an illusion.
>>>
>>> Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
>>>
>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>
>
> Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
> met...then they are not parallel lines.
>
> parallel lines never meet.
>
>
> Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet????  Or some schnook or
> schmuck?
>
Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
would have to meet.

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

#660713

LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> >>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> >>>>>> meeting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
> >>>> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
> >>>> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
> >>>
> >>> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
> >>>
> >>> It is the point of perspective.
> >>>
> >>> But it is an illusion.
> >>>
> >>> Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
> >>>
> >> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
> >> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
> >> are not perspectival or illusions.
> >
> >
> > Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
> > met...then they are not parallel lines.
> >
> > parallel lines never meet.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet????  Or some schnook or
> > schmuck?
> >
> Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
> would have to meet.


There are no lines in ...space.


There are stars in space that used to follow a straight line, but that
was before the big bang. 

The big bang broke all those straight lines...



*      *



*      *



        * 
         

            *


                *



You must be talking about...imaginary lines.


even ants don't walk a straight line.


Straight lines are not of Nature. 


Parallel liness are an invention of man only...


God does not walk a straight line...







   -- 
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]

#660715

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:34:47 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>>>> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
>>>>>> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the point of perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it is an illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>>>> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>>>> are not perspectival or illusions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
>>> met...then they are not parallel lines.
>>>
>>> parallel lines never meet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet????  Or some schnook or
>>> schmuck?
>>>
>> Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
>> would have to meet.
>
>
> There are no lines in ...space.
>
>
> There are stars in space that used to follow a straight line, but that
> was before the big bang.
>
> The big bang broke all those straight lines...
>
>
>
> *      *
>
>
>
> *      *
>
>
>
>         *
>
>
>             *
>
>
>                 *
>
>
>
> You must be talking about...imaginary lines.
>
>
> even ants don't walk a straight line.
>
>
> Straight lines are not of Nature.
>
>
> Parallel liness are an invention of man only...
>
>
> God does not walk a straight line...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge the unchallengeable.
It is amusing that in the "institutions of higher learning," the
prestigious Big Bang theory involves the reification fallacy.

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

#664191

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 13:34:47 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 19:06:32 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>> 
>> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>> >>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>> >>>>>> meeting.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>> >>>> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
>> >>>> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
>> >>>
>> >>> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is the point of perspective.
>> >>>
>> >>> But it is an illusion.
>> >>>
>> >>> Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
>> >>>
>> >> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
>> >> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
>> >> are not perspectival or illusions.
>> >
>> >
>> > Parallel lines don't meet by simple definition otherwise if they
>> > met...then they are not parallel lines.
>> >
>> > parallel lines never meet.
>> >
>> >
>> > Are you saying Einstein said parallel lines meet????  Or some schnook or
>> > schmuck?
>> >
>> Maybe Einstein didn't realize that for space to curve parallel lines
>> would have to meet.
>
>
>There are no lines in ...space.
>
>
>There are stars in space that used to follow a straight line, but that
>was before the big bang. 
>
>The big bang broke all those straight lines...
>
>
>
>*      *
>
>
>
>*      *
>
>
>
>        * 
>         
>
>            *
>
>
>                *
>
>
>
>You must be talking about...imaginary lines.
>
>
>even ants don't walk a straight line.
>
>
>Straight lines are not of Nature. 
>
>
>Parallel liness are an invention of man only...
>
>
>God does not walk a straight line...

I'l give you another example since your 'science teachers' are all
fruads...


yet, 'people' continue to draw straight lines..

if you look at people lines when they draw connecting lines of the Big
dipper, and all the other constellations...
they use straight lines ...only, to connect.

It's wrong.

Look at a spider's web...all the connecting lines are...curved!

If a spyder were to draw connecting lines of the stars of
the big dipper...he would use curved lines to connect.

. 

(
.

not

.

l
.






and of course the spyder would be at the center of his universe.



The dipper part of the big dipper is....curved.

it's Not a straight handle!



GET IT RIGHT!

 



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   -- 
>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]

#660771

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 5:42:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> >>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> >>>> meeting.
> >>>
> >>> You really don't understand any of this.
> >> You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
> >> the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
> >
> >
> > Every artist knows parallel lines meet.
> >
> > If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
> >
> > It is the point of perspective.
> >
> > But it is an illusion.
> >
> > Parallel lines don't meet before the big bang...
> >
> Thank you, but the refraction of sunlight that keeps the Sun visible
> after astronomical sunset and the bending of starlight during an eclipse
> are not perspectival or illusions.

Correct, and undisputed, but these two effects
have different and well understood causes,
and quite different orders of magnitude.
(30 minutes of arc versus 1.75 seconds of arc)

Another difference is that refraction in the atmosphere has dispersion,
(hence the famous 'green ray')
while the bending of light by the sun has not,

Jan

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

#660739

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> > >> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> > >> meeting.
> > >
> > > You really don't understand any of this.
> > You really don't understand logic, as proven by your failure to answer
> > the criticism directly by resorting to ad hominem. You lose.
> 
> 
> Every artist knows parallel lines meet. 
> 
> If you draw a drawing of a city...the parallel lines meet to a point.
> 
> It is the point of perspective.
> 
> But it is an illusion.

Of course not. This is called 'projective geometry'.
It is a well defined geometry, it is not Euclidean geometry,
and there is of course nothing wrong with it,

Jan

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

#660624

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>
>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>> meeting.
>
> You really don't understand any of this.
My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
as twice Newtonian.

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

#660648

On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>> meeting.
>>
>> You really don't understand any of this.
> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
> as twice Newtonian.
None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

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

#660653

Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>> as twice Newtonian.
> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.

Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to 
change your account settings :-P

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

#660655

W dniu 21.01.2025 o 19:50, Python pisze:
> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>> as twice Newtonian.
>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
> 
> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to 
> change your account settings :-P

Yes, he did notice. No, he didn't forget.
Just like always - your spitting is baseless.

Good doggie. That's what your shitty religion
has trained you for.

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

#660656

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:50:46 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>> as twice Newtonian.
>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
>
> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
> change your account settings :-P
You are losing by defaulting from the contest.

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

#660659

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 18:50:46 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>
>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>> as twice Newtonian.
>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
>
> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
> change your account settings :-P
Did you notice that many people read this forum, including many skeptics
I am talking to? You don't seem to be self-aware.

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

#660664

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
> > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
> >>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
> >>>> meeting.
> >>>
> >>> You really don't understand any of this.
> >> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
> >> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
> >> as twice Newtonian.
> > None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
> > read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
> > are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
> 
> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
> change your account settings :-P

Nothing special, many nutters do that.
It's part of the symptoms,

Jan

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

#660665

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>>> as twice Newtonian.
>>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
>>
>> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
>> change your account settings :-P
>
> Nothing special, many nutters do that.
> It's part of the symptoms,
>
> Jan
If relativity doesn't have to prove that parallel lines meet and can
just assume it then it is unfalsifiable. Resort to ad hominem is a
failure to reason. I have disproved the derivation and you have been
unable to criticize that refutation.

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

#660667

Extra dimensions are one of the untestable hypotheses mentioned in this
article, which says, "These unprovable hypotheses are quite different
from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable
through observations."
“Defend the integrity of physics”
http://www.nature.com/news/scientiYc-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

Relativity would have to prove other dimensions to prove that space is
curved and that parallel lines meet.

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

#660668

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>>> as twice Newtonian.
>>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
>>
>> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
>> change your account settings :-P
>
> Nothing special, many nutters do that.
> It's part of the symptoms,
>
> Jan
Of course we can weaken the testability requirement for relativity if
that would help.

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

#660669

On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 21:18:06 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Le 21/01/2025 à 19:18, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 23:27:27 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:30:17 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:08 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is necessary because it claims to have proven the doubling of the
>>>>>> Newtonian deflection, which involves curved space and parallel lines
>>>>>> meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really don't understand any of this.
>>>> My criticism of relativity at the top of this thread proves I understand
>>>> it exactly and have disproven the derivation of the deflection of light
>>>> as twice Newtonian.
>>> None of you have shown you even comprehended the criticism. Many people
>>> read this forum who don't participate, and you will persuade none. You
>>> are unable to engage in reasoned debate about this criticism.
>>
>> Did you notice you are talking to yourself, "Laurence". You forgot to
>> change your account settings :-P
>
> Nothing special, many nutters do that.
> It's part of the symptoms,
>
> Jan
The above quoted article says, "But conclusions arising logically from
mathematics need not apply to the real world." That space curves is not
a conclusion that arises logically from math.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web