Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #623928 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-11-11 17:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2023-11-19 02:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-11 17:50 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 11:02 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-12 12:18 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 16:33 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-12 17:51 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-16 18:21 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:31 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:49 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 16:56 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 20:35 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-17 10:27 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 11:28 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-17 15:32 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-17 16:58 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 09:20 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 10:33 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 11:28 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 18:57 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 02:36 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:20 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-25 21:37 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 07:38 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 12:00 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 16:29 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 16:52 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 18:15 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-26 19:22 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 20:54 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:45 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:40 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-27 02:02 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 23:43 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Alcadio Mihailovich Baidukov <adda@duldabcl.da> - 2023-11-27 18:03 +0000
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 17:05 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 18:35 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-18 17:43 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Zacarias Marushko <zaso@arhkhhaa.ah> - 2023-11-18 23:50 +0000
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-19 10:22 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 10:26 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-20 08:05 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-20 09:25 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-21 09:37 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-22 10:59 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Bret Kabulov <rrkm@kbvvuoaa.vb> - 2023-11-22 23:22 +0000
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-23 08:00 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-11-23 14:13 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-23 09:29 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-11-21 13:26 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:19 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 20:37 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:02 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-22 08:43 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-22 10:14 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-22 01:56 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2023-11-23 07:45 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-23 09:34 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2023-11-23 20:47 +0100
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-26 07:39 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:13 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-19 00:28 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-11-25 13:22 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 13:52 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:21 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Owen Valtchikovski <lnso@canhcchw.sk> - 2023-11-26 12:26 +0000
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:15 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:25 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 11:43 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 15:25 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-18 21:53 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-11-19 02:08 -0500
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-11-19 00:29 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Brittany Gudimov <vrmb@odvbiiri.du> - 2023-11-26 13:07 +0000
Re: Crooked and Straight Geometry Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-11-19 02:37 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-25 20:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e1e7dd5b-83ca-4459-96ef-af56cd858c1dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624132 |
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-25 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f452c6f0-0c6c-419f-9a1c-c29f2f8944d5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624563 |
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 07:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60aa5d19-4525-411c-826f-57b09c9e8d1cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624567 |
On Sunday, 26 November 2023 at 06:37:54 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote: > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by idiots like you "improper" clocks keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8a6b25f3-aefa-42eb-b96d-f795bdce478cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624567 |
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 16:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb646b97-bf09-4165-88c4-c1b30f8dd594n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624617 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 16:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06d40c02-96a4-4b2e-b870-b48b5e6a9c7en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624640 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it, Explain how any of it is right!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 18:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3eca94d0-b3bd-4018-b4f2-a394c0ff916fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624644 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. > > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! > > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it, > Explain how any of it is right! That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 19:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <53f20a24-63ae-486b-8956-09e6208a8eaan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624650 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > > > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. > > > > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! > > > > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it, > > > Explain how any of it is right! > That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2... You have a child-like faith in the system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 20:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <593396e4-88d4-442d-8776-9ef9619907d7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624653 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 7:22:44 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > > > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > > > > > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > > > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. > > > > > > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! > > > > > > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it, > > > > > Explain how any of it is right! > > That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. Relativity as it is understood today may not be correct, but in the last 100+ years no one, so far, has been able to bring it down.. and you yourself have zero chance of doing so... you simply do not know what you do not know and every time you post here you prove this claim of mine, over and over again. Read a dang textbook or 2... > You have a child-like faith in the system. A statement that only reinforces my claim. You remain completely clueless. The system works. You do not understand this and reject it without cause. Get a new hobby because this one is *way* beyond your comprehension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 23:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e43411cb-e2db-4fb0-963f-64cc674ba8d0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624658 |
> > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 6:15:27 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > > > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > > > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > > > > > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > > > > > > > > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > > > > > > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. > > > > > > > > > > Your ignorance of the subject matter grows every day! > > > > > > > > > > Underwater basket-weaving can be quite rewarding, you should try it, > > > > > > > Explain how any of it is right! > > > That is not how science works, Larry. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works. When someone comes up with a theory in physics, you can pretty much bet your life that many many other scientists will do their best to show that the new theory is wrong. That's not how science works, Al. Of course, you have no clue as to how science works, and no surprise: science is complicated and you're very dumb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 23:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d3d2d538-74a9-4bdd-8b66-b5280466c2adn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624640 |
On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 01:29:38 UTC+1, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:00:52 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > > > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > > > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > > > > > > You are wasting your time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > You make this claim in the face of overwhelming evidence? > > https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Explain why any of these experiments is wrong, and why. Al, poor halfbrain, why would experiments be wrong? It's just that being an idiot lacking any logic - you're imagining they're supporting your idiocies. It's quite ordinary of course, every fanatic idiot of the world believes that everything is supporting his idiocies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-27 02:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <uk1euu$3lmug$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #624617 |
On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: >> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! >> >> You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so your claim is false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 23:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9bbeff27-f78c-4e32-a6cd-5d444f8a36dcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624665 |
On Monday, 27 November 2023 at 08:03:00 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 11/26/2023 3:00 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > >> And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! > >> > >> You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving... > > > Relativity is not supported by any experiments because self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so And unfortunately for you, in the meantime in the real world forbidden by your bunch of idiots improper clocks keep measuring t'=t..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alcadio Mihailovich Baidukov <adda@duldabcl.da> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-27 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uk2lm3$2vv6e$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #624665 |
Volney wrote: >> Relativity is not supported by any experiments because >> self-contradictory predictions do not predict anything. > > Unfortunately for you, relativity is supported by many experiments, so > your claim is false. except that 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 "𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆", but my "𝗢𝗻_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗠𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗞𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹". That's what those experiments are proving to exists in Physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 17:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2a601cca-9673-41d5-8f1d-6bb1b08ff09fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624567 |
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 9:37:54 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 6:57:48 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 9:20:03 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 3:32:06 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... > > > > > > > > > We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished > > > > > > > > > and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > > > > > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to his math and science ineptitude, Mathis is also a raving conspiracy theorist." > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > > > > > > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... > > > > > > > I'll buy you a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer magazine so you can learn to question the accepted "science." > > > All legitimate scientists question "skeptical science", that is how is works... but they use evidence to support their claims, not wild speculation like you do. > > > Relativity is wild and hair brain speculation. > And yet, relativity is supported by both experiments and observations, whereas your caustic drivel is pure speculation with no support whatsoever! Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion? At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of its own? > > You are wasting you time arguing about your weak position regarding relativity and should find another hobby... like, perhaps, underwater basket weaving...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-26 18:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea02c098-417e-49a0-a644-eab170fb4c09n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #624647 |
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 5:05:45 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > Paul? Can you measure the difference between absolute and relative motion? > At a motion black hole the atom competes with light. If light is absolute motion > and the atom can compete how is the atom not having a form of absolute motion of > its own? Mitch, I'm pretty sure that if you have a functioning brain in your head you would take it out and play with it. How can anyone write such drivel with a straight face?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-18 17:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ujbena$3g7st$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #624125 |
On 11/18/2023 12:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >> It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. > > Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived claims... yeah cranks like to hang out with each other, pat each other on the back and form a little cult of stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zacarias Marushko <zaso@arhkhhaa.ah> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-18 23:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ujbikf$gs40$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #624130 |
Volney wrote: > On 11/18/2023 12:20 PM, Paul Alsing wrote: >> On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 4:58:16 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark >> Crossen wrote: > >>> It sounds like he is a thousand times better than Einstein. The ad >>> hominem issuing from the illogical heckler again. I find his >>> criticisms of relativity very helpful and certainly far better than >>> relativity. The only problem, Is he accepts any of it at all. >> >> Yet another case of a crank supporting another crank, neither one of >> them having any evidence whatsoever in support of their ill-conceived >> claims... > > yeah cranks like to hang out with each other, pat each other on the back > and form a little cult of stupidity. neither you do. Nobody knows what gravity is, not even Einstine. All he did was to model 𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗰𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Essentially like Newtone, inventing fictitious forces and accelerations. what a morons, these guys don't undrestand anything in Physics. lol 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲_𝘁𝗼_𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲_𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗼𝗻_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹’𝘀_𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿_𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀_–_𝗧ü𝗿𝗸𝗶𝘆𝗲 https://r%74.com/news/587571-erdogan-israel-nuclear-weapons/ 𝗛𝗼𝘄_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱_𝗵𝗶𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗮𝘁_𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁_𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗫𝗶,_𝗹𝗼𝗹 https://r%74.com/news/587565-biden-xi-summit-cringe/ 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆_𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁_𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮,_𝗹𝗼𝗹 https://r%74.com/russia/587567-ukrainian-military-pilot-defect-russia/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-19 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kru28eFcm3eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #624111 |
Am 18.11.2023 um 00:32 schrieb Paul Alsing: > On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:27:04 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote: >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:50:35 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: > >>> "Euclidean” and “Euclidean,” replacing them with “curved” and “straight.” That will be my first simplification... >>> We have been told that curved geometry has been used for the last two centuries because it allows us to solve problems we could not solve before. This is a false claim. Any problem that can be solved with curved geometry can be solved with straight geometry, and it can be solved much more quickly and transparently with straight geometry. If problems have seemed to be solved with curved geometry that could not be solved with straight geometry, it is only because those problems were too subtle for mathematicians of the time. They could not solve them with rigorous, elegant proofs, and they needed some room to fudge their way through the proof. Curved geometry was chosen because it gave them this latitude, this room to move. As I will show, curved geometry allowed for numbers to be squashed and stretched, and this allowed for solutions to be hammered into place. By and large, curved geometry came to the fore not for honest reasons, but for dishonest reasons. It has become pandemic not because it is better but because it is easier to fake. It has flourished for the same reason legalese has flourished and for the same reason propaganda has flourished >>> and for the same reason advertising has flourished. It has flourished because it has proved to be a successful con-job. It is an impressive and opaque parlor trick that fools almost everyone. It fills blackboards and makes people rich and famous." Miles Mathis "Why non-Euclidean geometry is a cheat" Miles Mathis "Why Non-Euclidean Geometry is a Cheat" > >> Laurence, thank you for yet another brilliant analysis. I shall go to Amazon immediately and get the Miles Mathis tome. > > I doubt that any rational person would believe anything that Miles Mathis has to say about science or math. > > https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Miles_Mathis > > "Mathis is best known for his outlandish and often ridiculous theories. For instance, that π (pi) is actually equal to 4, with the caveat that motion be involved; however, not one single reputable scientist agrees with this far-fetched nonsense. Mathis thinks that standard mathematical derivatives are incorrect — overturning almost all math and science, ever. He has also invented a charge field theory which, like all of his other myriad theories, has yet to pass the scrutiny of a basic peer review. > He proposes a 'pi=4 theory', what I regard as wrong. He apparently had developed a https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything and called that 'unified field theory'. But I actually think, that my own is much better. See here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually Winston Churchill ;-)) ) TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11-19 10:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kru2loFcqhgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #624149 |
On 2023-11-19 09:22:02 +0000, Thomas Heger said: > > [ … ] > > (btw: my own conspriracy theories are also better and also more > numerous. E.g. I had the idea, that 'Jack the Ripper' was actually > Winston Churchill ;-)) > ) Crazy as a loon -- Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly in England until 1987.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web