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

Groups > sci.physics > #890844 > unrolled thread

Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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) - 2025-01-23 23:37 +0000
        Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-23 23:45 +0000
        Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 00:21 +0000
        Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2025-01-24 03:19 +0000
        Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 04:14 +0000
        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? Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-24 07:21 +0100
        Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-24 21:44 +0000
          Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-01-24 14:44 -0800
        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? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:03 +0000
            Re: How do Universities Sell Prestigious Baubles? clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) - 2025-01-25 21:22 +0000
    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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#890924

Le 25/01/2025 à 23:30, Python a écrit :
> Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :

> BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)

 J'aimerais connaître la tienne en critique de l'intelligence humaine.

 Ca doit casser des barreaux de chaise.

 R.H. 

 

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

#890929

On 1/25/25 4:30 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 25/01/2025 à 23:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
> 
> BTW, Woz, what is your level of education in math? :-)
> 
> 


Why not you first. What is yours?

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

#891021

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

> 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".

Indeed, and au contraire:
Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
(nothing about // lines intersecting at infinity)
It becomes a theorem that there are lines that do not intersect.

Jan

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

#891024

W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:

>>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
>>>
>>> A lie. Of course.
>>
>> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
> 
> Indeed, and au contraire:

> Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
> in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.

And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
dodging and changing the subject. How about you?

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

#891025

Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

> W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> 
> >>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
> >>>
> >>> A lie. Of course.
> >>
> >> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
> > 
> > Indeed, and au contraire:
> 
> > Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
> > in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
> 
> And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
> does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
> Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
> dodging and changing the subject. How about you?

You might have noticed that I make it a habit
of never replying to your silly rants.
I'll make an exception for once,
because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
who might stray in here.

Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.

It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
by definition,

Jan

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

#891026

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>
>> W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>
>>>>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie. Of course.
>>>>
>>>> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
>>>
>>> Indeed, and au contraire:
>>
>>> Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
>>> in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
>>
>> And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
>> does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
>> Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
>> dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
>
> You might have noticed that I make it a habit
> of never replying to your silly rants.
> I'll make an exception for once,
> because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
> who might stray in here.
>
> Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
> A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.

The Pythagoras theorem is just that. Euclidean geometry is defined by
axioms or self-evident and unquestionable truths upon which all theorems
are derived. Not the other way around.
>
> It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
> by definition,

All other geometries are mappings based on Euclidean geometry, if we are
talking engineering sense.


>
> Jan

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

#891062

Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> >
> >> W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> >>
> >>>>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A lie. Of course.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, and au contraire:
> >>
> >>> Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
> >>> in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
> >>
> >> And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
> >> does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
> >> Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
> >> dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
> >
> > You might have noticed that I make it a habit
> > of never replying to your silly rants.
> > I'll make an exception for once,
> > because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
> > who might stray in here.
> >
> > Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
> > A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
> 
> The Pythagoras theorem is just that. Euclidean geometry is defined by
> axioms or self-evident and unquestionable truths upon which all theorems
> are derived. Not the other way around.

What is axiom, and what is theorem,
is in some cases merely a matter of taste.
The // axiom-theorem is a case in point.
You can take it as an axiom, and prove Pythagoras,
or you can take Pythagoras, and prove the //-theorem.

And FYI, the // axiom was never accepted as 'self-evident',
by the most mathematicians.
There have been lots of attempts to prove it from the other axioms,
until Gauss and others proved that this is a futile excercise,
by showing that it is an independent axiom that you can leave or take.

> > It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
> > by definition,
> 
> All other geometries are mappings based on Euclidean geometry, if we are
> talking engineering sense.

The // axiom/theorem has nothing to do with engineering. [1]
OTOH, Pythagoras does,

Jan

[1] Engineers don't build infinitely large structures.

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

#891072

On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 20:30:16 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 10:39:19 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lie. Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, and au contraire:
>>>>
>>>>> Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
>>>>> in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
>>>>
>>>> And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
>>>> does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
>>>> Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
>>>> dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
>>>
>>> You might have noticed that I make it a habit
>>> of never replying to your silly rants.
>>> I'll make an exception for once,
>>> because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
>>> who might stray in here.
>>>
>>> Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.
>>> A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.
>>
>> The Pythagoras theorem is just that. Euclidean geometry is defined by
>> axioms or self-evident and unquestionable truths upon which all theorems
>> are derived. Not the other way around.
>
> What is axiom, and what is theorem,
> is in some cases merely a matter of taste.

No, it is not a matter of taste. It is invincible deductive logic and
that is not to the taste of those who profit from confusion. That is,
the e=mcc wallahs.

> The // axiom-theorem is a case in point.
> You can take it as an axiom, and prove Pythagoras,
> or you can take Pythagoras, and prove the //-theorem.

No. From axioms you find theorems including P.
>
> And FYI, the // axiom was never accepted as 'self-evident',
> by the most mathematicians.

Not up to the 70s when they taught Euclid in schools.

> There have been lots of attempts to prove it from the other axioms,
> until Gauss and others proved that this is a futile excercise,
> by showing that it is an independent axiom that you can leave or take.
>
>>> It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
>>> by definition,
>>
>> All other geometries are mappings based on Euclidean geometry, if we are
>> talking engineering sense.
>
> The // axiom/theorem has nothing to do with engineering. [1]
> OTOH, Pythagoras does,
>
> Jan
>
> [1] Engineers don't build infinitely large structures.

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

#891027

W dniu 02.02.2025 o 11:39, J. J. Lodder pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> 
>> W dniu 01.02.2025 o 23:28, J. J. Lodder pisze:
>>
>>>>>> Nobody is "rejecting Euclid"
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie. Of course.
>>>>
>>>> Because you say so? I checked: nobody is "rejecting Euclid".
>>>
>>> Indeed, and au contraire:
>>
>>> Nowadays Euclidean geometry is -defined- as that kind of geometry
>>> in which the Pythagorean theorem holds.
>>
>> And - according to the teachings of your moronic church -
>> does  Pythagorean theorem hold? For real?
>> Poor stinker Python has never answerred, he's always
>> dodging and changing the subject. How about you?
> 
> You might have noticed that I make it a habit
> of never replying to your silly rants.
> I'll make an exception for once,
> because you are trying to mislead the innocent kiddies
> who might stray in here.
> 
> Of course the Pythagorean theorem holds -in Euclidean geometry-.

I was not asking whether it holds in Euclidean geometry.
Flat Earth holds - in flat Earth theory, poor halfbrain.
No surprise in  that.
I was asking whether it holds for real (according to
you and your brothers in Einstein, of course).
Will you answer? No more moronic dodging? For innocent
kiddies?


> A forteriori, it -defines- Euclidean geometry, nowadays.


Flat Earth defines flat Earth theory, creationism
defines creationism theory and so on.
And somehow that doesn't mean you didn't reject
them, right? Or maybe it does?


> 
> It does of course not hold in any other kind of geometry,
> by definition,


And - does it hold for real? Or have your bunch of
idiots rejected it? It would be good indeed for
innocent kiddies if you start admitting that for
nothing more than a plain assertion of your idiot
guru you had to  reject basic math.

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

#890919

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.


While you are at it, ask him how many planets in our solar system...

only 3 year olds give an answer.








-- 
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]

#890922

Le 25/01/2025 à 22:11, Python a écrit :
> 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.

Python, the new Henri Poincaré just asking.

Le même qui n'est pas capable de pratiquer l'amour anal avec Hachel, et 
qui se met à pleurer parce que c'est trop profond.

The new Henri Poincaré, qu'il disait. 

R.H. 

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

#890893

Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> 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.

Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be 
"curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?

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

#890894

On 1/24/2025 6:33 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
>> 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.
> 
> Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be 
> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
> 
> 

I have to admit that plotting 4d fields scare me a bit... I don't know 
where to plot a 4d point aka, a point with a non-zero 4th dimensional 
component. So, I just plot the 3d components. The fun part is that 
attractors in the 4d make some radically interesting formations wrt 
their 3d plotted counterparts wrt the 4d vectors the occur during 
iteration.......

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

#890907

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> 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.
>
> Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.

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

#890911

Le 25/01/2025 à 22:14, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
>> Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> 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.
>>
>> Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
>> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
> What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
> curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.

Because you say so? LOL.

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

#890912

On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:23:51 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:14, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
> :
>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>>> :
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
>>> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
>> What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
>> curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
>
> Because you say so? LOL.
That is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
you say so? It is, by definition, a reification fallacy because it
confuses the abstract with the physical. What are you saying is curved?
Vacuum? A field?

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

#890914

Le 25/01/2025 à 22:39, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit 
:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:23:51 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
>> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:14, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>> :
>>> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 2:33:23 +0000, Python wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 24/01/2025 à 23:11, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit
>>>> :
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Your "petitio principii" is that a 3D space, or a 4D space-time can be
>>>> "curved" the same way a surface can be. Why that?
>>> What are you trying to ask or say? How can space be curved? It can't be
>>> curved at all. That is the reification fallacy.
>>
>> Because you say so? LOL.
> That is not what I said. Why is it not a reification fallacy? Because
> you say so? It is, by definition, a reification fallacy because it
> confuses the abstract with the physical. What are you saying is curved?
> Vacuum? A field?

How could you know? You are uneducated in math, and in physics.

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

#890923

Le 25/01/2025 à 22:47, Python a écrit :
> Le 25/01/2025 à 22:39, clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :

> How could you know? You are uneducated in math, and in physics.

Nice signature.

R.H. 

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

#890848

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.
>
>
>
I'm on it!

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

#890865

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.
> >
> >
> >
> I'm on it!


Now that you are  "on it", I just want to know who side you are on...


How many planets are there in our solar system?




-- 
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]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web