Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #660731 > unrolled thread
| Started by | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-23 12:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-01-25 13:04 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 70 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 12:35 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-23 10:05 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-23 12:34 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 21:47 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 22:20 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-23 14:24 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 21:40 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 22:11 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 16:39 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:05 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 21:11 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:15 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 21:23 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-27 11:13 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-25 22:50 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 22:10 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-25 23:25 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 22:30 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-26 07:47 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-26 14:42 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-26 21:02 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-26 14:34 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-26 23:46 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-02-01 23:28 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-02 08:34 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-02-02 11:39 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-02-02 11:13 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-02-02 21:30 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-02-03 02:38 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-02-02 13:41 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-25 14:56 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-26 14:31 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 02:33 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 18:58 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:14 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 21:23 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:39 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-25 21:47 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-26 14:33 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 21:44 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-23 21:35 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 05:45 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-23 22:08 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-23 22:47 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 12:12 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 21:30 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 22:05 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 12:04 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-24 10:31 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 12:53 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-24 12:43 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-26 15:16 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-27 11:02 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-27 18:05 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 22:26 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 22:28 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 22:40 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-23 15:06 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 04:26 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 04:25 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 21:51 +0000
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-24 14:46 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-24 09:06 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 12:14 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-25 07:53 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-24 10:29 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-24 12:55 -0600
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-01-25 07:54 +0100
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-01-25 09:44 -0800
Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-25 13:04 -0600
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 12:35 +0000 |
| Subject | How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? |
| Message-ID | <266e4dcf4bee1d0100c5716c04f2e786@www.novabbs.com> |
It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, slavish, and avoidable.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 10:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <679284FD.3ABB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #660731 |
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > > It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. > How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain > prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The > reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a > child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing > people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as > expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly > embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, > slavish, and avoidable. They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks monopoly'. (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. The cabal decides what they want you to think. How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. -- 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]
| From | Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 12:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <vmu236$cdrf$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #660733 |
On 1/23/25 12:05 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. _You_ may not like it, but I call them "Capones." :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67a111c1cd4ba39ca41fe660200ecadf@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660733 |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: > LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> >> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >> slavish, and avoidable. > > > They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks > monopoly'. > > (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) > > You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. > > > The cabal decides what they want you to think. > > > How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. > > > The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept curved space for a second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5e7fc5f52bd5693fabce0060ee8b91df@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660741 |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: > >> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>> >>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and thoughtlessly >>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>> slavish, and avoidable. >> >> >> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >> monopoly'. >> >> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >> >> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >> >> >> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >> >> >> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >> >> >> > The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who > couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept > curved space for a second. Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as a foolish fellow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-23 14:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vmufi5$1r9fi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660747 |
On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> >>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>> thoughtlessly >>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>> >>> >>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>> monopoly'. >>> >>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>> >>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>> >>> >>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>> >>> >>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>> >>> >>> >> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >> curved space for a second. > Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood > that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it > stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and > forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel > lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the > doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person > would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as > a foolish fellow. Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will never intersect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-24 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <19ff8d7ca6248be850387e8efc3ff36a@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660748 |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>> >>>> >>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'. >>>> >>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>> >>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>> >>>> >>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>> >>>> >>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>> curved space for a second. >> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >> a foolish fellow. > > Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will > never intersect. You did not understand. Even Paul recently acknowledged that space is not a surface. Then, we should understand that space does not curve. Claiming it does is an unmistakable example of the reification fallacy, where an abstraction is confused with the physical. The derivation of the doubling is a clear case of this, making it an invalid derivation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-24 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50d67245623f6116d399ab3a0a503fa7@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660748 |
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass baubles. >>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic attain >>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error that a >>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities convincing >>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, such as >>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>> >>>> >>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>> monopoly'. >>>> >>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>> >>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>> >>>> >>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>> >>>> >>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>> curved space for a second. >> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >> a foolish fellow. > > Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will > never intersect. You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a surface and its not curved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-24 16:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vn1bse$2fn29$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #660787 |
On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>> baubles. >>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>> attain >>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>> that a >>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>> convincing >>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>> such as >>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>> monopoly'. >>>>> >>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>> >>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>> curved space for a second. >>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>> a foolish fellow. >> >> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >> never intersect. > You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio > principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a > surface and its not curved. If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and turn through the field...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <77bc025d62d66c76382529a996618f1b@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660789 |
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>> attain >>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>> that a >>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>> such as >>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>> >>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>> >>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>> curved space for a second. >>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>> a foolish fellow. >>> >>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>> never intersect. >> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >> surface and its not curved. > > If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might > intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's > strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my > experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and > turn through the field... Fields can curve while space cannot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GoDQLHRLhTM5HdTB9re7zXIA6qI@jntp> |
| In reply to | #660807 |
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>> >>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>> never intersect. >>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>> surface and its not curved. >> >> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >> turn through the field... > Fields can curve while space cannot. "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e12ee11fea06d40608e18f860d9eb90f@www.novabbs.com> |
| In reply to | #660808 |
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:11:08 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit > : >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>> >>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect. >>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved. >>> >>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>> turn through the field... >> Fields can curve while space cannot. > > "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. It doesn't matter because math can't bend space. Anyone who thinks it can is incompetent in physics. For example, Einstein.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su5i3YZO2sca-t6C5k9eqwcFw4c@jntp> |
| In reply to | #660811 |
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:15, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : > On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:11:08 +0000, Python wrote: > >> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> : >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for fortunes? The >>>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very pathetic, >>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A cabal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual weaklings who >>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't accept >>>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have understood >>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that parallel >>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation for the >>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized him as >>>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>>> never intersect. >>>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>>> surface and its not curved. >>>> >>>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>> turn through the field... >>> Fields can curve while space cannot. >> >> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. > It doesn't matter It does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5ZIlP.9010$uhi5.2403@fx10.ams4> |
| In reply to | #660811 |
Den 25.01.2025 22:15, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:11:08 +0000, Python wrote:
>
>>
>> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking.
> It doesn't matter because math can't bend space. Anyone who thinks it
> can is incompetent in physics. For example, Einstein.
What an idiotic statement! :-D
Math does obviously not curve space.
In GR it is matter and energy that curve spacetime.
GR is a mathematical model which is able to predict what
will be measured in space and time in the real world.
That's the only point with theories of physics.
The validity of a theory depend on its ability to
correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
GR is thoroughly tested and never falsified.
Remember this statement of yours?
"It is sad that you can't recognize that non-Euclidean geometry applied
to space is a reification fallacy because space is not a surface."
This rather funny statement of yours reveals that the only
non-Euclidean geometry you know is Gaussian geometry.
Loosely explained, Gaussian geometry is about surfaces in 3-dimentinal
Euclidean space. The shape of the surface is defined by a function
f(x,y,z) where x,y,z are Cartesian coordinates.
Note that we must use three coordinates to describe a 2-dimentional
surface.
----
Riemannian geometry is more general.
Loosely explained, Riemannian geometry is about manifolds (spaces)
of any dimensions. The "shape" of the manifold is described by
the metric.
The metric describes the length of a line element.
The metric describing a flat 2D surface is:
ds² = dx² + dy² (if Pythagoras is valid, the surface is flat)
The metric describing a 2D spherical surface is:
ds² = dθ² + sin²θ⋅dφ²
Note that only two coordinates are needed to describe the surface.
The coordinates are _in_ the surface, not in a 3D-space.
----------
The metric for a "flat 3D-space" (Euclidean space) is:
ds² = dx² + dy² + dy² (Pythagoras again!)
The metric for a 3D-sphere is:
ds² = dr² + r²dθ² + r²sin²θ⋅dφ²
Note that only three coordinates are needed to describe
the shape of a 3D space.
----------
In spacetime geometry there is a four dimensional manifold called
spacetime. The spacetime metric has four coordinates, one temporal
and four spatial.
The metric for a static flat spacetime is:
ds² = − (c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²
If ds² is positive, the line element ds is space-like,
If ds² is negative, the line element ds is time-like.
In the latter case it is better to write the metric:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
If there is a mass present (Sun, Earth) spacetime will be curved.
The metric for spacetime in the vicinity of a spherical mass is:
See equation (2) in
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
Note that there are four coordinates, t, r, θ and ϕ
--------------------
So to your parallel lines which you claim have to meet in curved space.
Two points:
1. In spacetime geometry, it is spacetime that is curved.
2. What is a "line"? In Euclidean geometry we would say
"a straight line". A more precise expression is a "geodesic line".
In spacetime geometry the definition of "geodesic line" is rather
complicated.
But all free falling objects, including photons, are moving along
geodesic lines. So let us consider light beams (the trajectory of
a photon).
Far out in space, where spacetime is quite flat,
we have two parallel light beams.
These light beam pass on either side of the Sun,
where spacetime is curved.
The light beams are gracing the Sun, and will be
gravitationally deflected by 1.75".
The light beams will then meet 274 AU after they passed the Sun.
Parallel geodesic lines may meet.
Conclusion:
If mass is present, spacetime is curved.
But remember, spacetime is an entity in the mathematical model GR.
It is meaningless to ask if "spacetime" really exist.
The point is that the mathematical GR correctly predicts
what will be measured in the real space and time.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 22:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <181e0def99a3765e$15257$1433769$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #660808 |
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze: > Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> >>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>> fortunes? The >>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>> pathetic, >>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by >>>>>>>> the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>> cabal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>> weaklings who >>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>> accept >>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>> understood >>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>> parallel >>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>> for the >>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized >>>>>> him as >>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>> >>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>> never intersect. >>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>> surface and its not curved. >>> >>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>> turn through the field... >> Fields can curve while space cannot. > > "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid would be, and he has written it clearly enough for anyone able to read (even if not clearly enough for you, poor stinker). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 22:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HLJ_xLCVFcgkbJ2hsew_iF1zqOo@jntp> |
| In reply to | #660817 |
Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze: >> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The >>>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>> pathetic, >>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by >>>>>>>>> the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>> cabal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>> weaklings who >>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>> understood >>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>> parallel >>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>> for the >>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and recognized >>>>>>> him as >>>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They will >>>>>> never intersect. >>>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's not a >>>>> surface and its not curved. >>>> >>>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. It's >>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>> turn through the field... >>> Fields can curve while space cannot. >> >> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. > > > But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit > to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid > would be, and he has written it clearly > enough for anyone able to read (even if not > clearly enough for you) Still confused Woz? Nobody is "rejecting Euclid" and Poincaré would punch you in the face. > poor stinker Nice signature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 23:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <181e0fdb6f4f1ece$12971$1427260$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #660818 |
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze: > Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze: >>> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a >>> écrit : >>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The >>>>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>> pathetic, >>>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by >>>>>>>>>> the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>>> cabal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>>> weaklings who >>>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>>> understood >>>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>> parallel >>>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and >>>>>>>> recognized him as >>>>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> never intersect. >>>>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>> not a >>>>>> surface and its not curved. >>>>> >>>>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. >>>>> It's >>>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>>>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>> turn through the field... >>>> Fields can curve while space cannot. >>> >>> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. >> >> >> But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit >> to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid >> would be, and he has written it clearly >> enough for anyone able to read (even if not >> clearly enough for you) > > Still confused Woz? No, Pyt. > Nobody is "rejecting Euclid" A lie. Of course. BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic? Still no answer, poor stinker? For sure, spitting and slandering the enemies of your church is much easier than answerring their questions, isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-25 22:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fi825AoqCg5o9Go62CoY2LUf5e0@jntp> |
| In reply to | #660819 |
Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze: >> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>> W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze: >>>> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a >>>> écrit : >>>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic logic >>>>>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The >>>>>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish error >>>>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic, >>>>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by >>>>>>>>>>> the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? A >>>>>>>>>>> cabal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>>>> weaklings who >>>>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> accept >>>>>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>>>> understood >>>>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? Isn't it >>>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest and >>>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>>> parallel >>>>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our derivation >>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable person >>>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and >>>>>>>>> recognized him as >>>>>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. They >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> never intersect. >>>>>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>>> not a >>>>>>> surface and its not curved. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange sense. >>>>>> It's >>>>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>>>>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>>> turn through the field... >>>>> Fields can curve while space cannot. >>>> >>>> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. >>> >>> >>> But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit >>> to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid >>> would be, and he has written it clearly >>> enough for anyone able to read (even if not >>> clearly enough for you) >> >> Still confused Woz? > > No, Pyt. Still you are. >> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid" > > A lie. Of course. Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid". > BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic? If you want to know, learn. Information sources are free. > Still no answer, poor stinker? For sure, > spitting and slandering the enemies of your > church is much easier than answerring their > questions, isn't it? Why would people lost time in trying to educate, in vain, idiotic kooks of your kind Woz? I'm sad for nurses who have to clean your dirty pants every morning. But there is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-26 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <181e2b3f51684969$10577$1417112$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #660820 |
W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:30, Python pisze: > Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >> W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze: >>> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>> W dniu 25.01.2025 o 22:11, Python pisze: >>>>> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:05, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a >>>>> écrit : >>>>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 0:39:40 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/24/2025 2:11 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:24:04 +0000, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 2:20 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 21:47:25 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:05:49 +0000, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is said that simple people are sometimes impressed by glass >>>>>>>>>>>>> baubles. >>>>>>>>>>>>> How do cheap and stupid, fallacious ideas violating basic >>>>>>>>>>>>> logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> attain >>>>>>>>>>>>> prestige values and become marketed at universities for >>>>>>>>>>>>> fortunes? The >>>>>>>>>>>>> reification fallacy is an elementary fallacy and a foolish >>>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>>> that a >>>>>>>>>>>>> child would know better than. However, we find universities >>>>>>>>>>>>> convincing >>>>>>>>>>>>> people that ideas involving this error are highly intelligent, >>>>>>>>>>>>> such as >>>>>>>>>>>>> expanding and bending space. Then, people uncritically and >>>>>>>>>>>>> thoughtlessly >>>>>>>>>>>>> embrace these ideas without a second thought. This is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetic, >>>>>>>>>>>>> slavish, and avoidable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They become marketed at universities for fortunes by >>>>>>>>>>>> the ...'textbooks >>>>>>>>>>>> monopoly'. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (of course the teachers textbooks come with the answers) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You need to investigate the 'textbooks monopoly' cartel. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The cabal decides what they want you to think. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How many planets are there? Who decides the answer for you? >>>>>>>>>>>> A cabal. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The really amusing thing is that people are intellectual >>>>>>>>>>> weaklings who >>>>>>>>>>> couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag, or they >>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't accept >>>>>>>>>>> curved space for a second. >>>>>>>>>> Did you ever acknowledge my point that Einstein should have >>>>>>>>>> understood >>>>>>>>>> that parallel lines would have to meet for space to curve? >>>>>>>>>> Isn't it >>>>>>>>>> stupid as hell not to recognize that? If he had been an honest >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> forthright person, he would have said we have to presume that >>>>>>>>>> parallel >>>>>>>>>> lines meet to claim space is curved, and this is our >>>>>>>>>> derivation for the >>>>>>>>>> doubling of the Newtonian deflection. Then, every reasonable >>>>>>>>>> person >>>>>>>>>> would have balked at such an irrational assumption and >>>>>>>>>> recognized him as >>>>>>>>>> a foolish fellow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Think of drawing two horizontal lines on a spheres surface. >>>>>>>>> They will >>>>>>>>> never intersect. >>>>>>>> You presume space can be treated as a surface. That is a petitio >>>>>>>> principii. You presume it's curved to conclude it's curved. It's >>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>> surface and its not curved. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it was curved a bit, then I can see how two parallel lines might >>>>>>> intersect at a point at infinity, so to speak, in a strange >>>>>>> sense. It's >>>>>>> strange to me. When I plot field individual lines in one of my >>>>>>> experimental fields, they never intersect even though they twist and >>>>>>> turn through the field... >>>>>> Fields can curve while space cannot. >>>>> >>>>> "Laurence", what is your level of education in maths? Just asking. >>>> >>>> >>>> But whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit >>>> to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid >>>> would be, and he has written it clearly >>>> enough for anyone able to read (even if not >>>> clearly enough for you) >>> >>> Still confused Woz? >> >> No, Pyt. > > Still you are. > >>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid" >> >> A lie. Of course. > > Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid". Because you say so? I checked: every relativistic knight is rejecting Euclid. And many of them are doctoring "evidence" against Euclid. > >> BTW, so, how do you recognize a space geodesic? > > If you want to know, learn. I did. You didn't, so still no answer. For sure, spitting and slandering the enemies of your church is much easier than answerring their questions, isn't it, poor stinker? > I'm sad for nurses who have to clean your dirty pants every morning. But > there is nothing I can do about that, unfortunately. slander noun 1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation > BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-) It is good enough, Pyt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-26 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <YeF5YXpwsENfZv6wnHjKjF86wEw@jntp> |
| In reply to | #660823 |
Le 26/01/2025 à 07:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : > W dniu 25.01.2025 o 23:30, Python pisze: >> BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-) > > It is good enough, Pyt. In physics, he is unable to understand the difference between a proper, real, and observable time. He does not know that if the observable times are equal over an equal distance, the proper times will be equal. He does not know a lot of stuff that I patiently explained to him on French forums. He does not even know how to explain what a complex number is and why there is a real root and an imaginary root. He is crazy. Then he asks others to show their diploma, as if you could not buy a diploma. He is laughable. Even I laugh. R.H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web