Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #836038 > unrolled thread
| Started by | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-11-17 18:59 -0600 |
| Last post | 2021-11-21 12:10 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Since several claim to be so smart whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-17 18:59 -0600
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-18 12:37 +1100
Re: Since several claim to be so smart whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-17 20:05 -0600
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-18 15:15 +1100
Objective reality is unobtainable. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2021-11-17 22:40 -0800
Re: Objective reality is unobtainable. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-18 05:34 -0600
Re: Since several claim to be so smart James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 19:07 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-17 20:15 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 20:52 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-17 21:10 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 21:21 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 09:36 -0800
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-11-18 08:57 -0600
Re: Since several claim to be so smart Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 09:37 -0800
Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-17 22:36 -0600
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-17 21:19 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 09:38 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 10:26 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 10:32 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 10:52 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 11:05 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 12:37 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 15:14 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-18 15:23 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 23:08 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 06:40 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 07:19 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 07:36 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 08:37 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 08:53 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 10:20 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 13:21 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 13:36 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 15:33 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 16:24 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 16:42 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-19 17:40 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-20 17:55 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-20 18:29 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-20 18:32 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-20 19:12 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-20 19:18 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-20 20:16 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-20 21:58 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-21 09:33 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-21 10:21 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-21 12:05 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-11-21 13:23 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2021-11-20 21:49 -0600
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 12:20 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-11-19 01:41 -0500
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-18 16:58 +1100
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-18 05:29 -0600
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-18 23:51 +1100
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-11-18 09:52 -0600
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2021-11-18 08:42 -0800
Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-11-20 11:52 +1100
Re: Since several claim to be so smart "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-11-21 12:10 -0800
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 18:59 -0600 |
| Subject | Since several claim to be so smart |
| Message-ID | <ivlmquFpgojU1@mid.individual.net> |
Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. Come on, if you're really a genius this should be easy to do. I don't claim to be a genius and I am willing to disqualify myself from this attempt. I'd be willing to bet that most of the so called geniuses here don't even know what this postulate is without looking it up. Come on guys, this puzzle has been around for roughly 3000 years, All it needs is a really clever person to solve the problem. And yes, I'm talking about Euclid of Alexandria, just so there's no confusion. The other Euclid of ancient times was also a mathematician but it isn't him I'm talking about. What makes this interesting is that Euclid's parallel postulate has been accepted as valid for thousands of years without so much as an actual proof that it is valid, and that is the basis for some of the incessant argumentation going on right now. So you're already arguing the essence of the scientific method, and here's an example that violates that scientific method that we hold so dear, but we accept it anyway. If you can provide a proof or disproof of this postulate that stands up to scrutiny you'll be an acknowledged hero for many millennia to come. Don't be shy, be famous for something positive! Relf is so concerned about his gallons of drinking water he need not even consider this.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 12:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ivlp26FptcgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #836038 |
On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: > Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. > > So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's > parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved geometry. For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then nothing can be said about parallel lines. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 20:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <ivlqo1Fq5kcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #836042 |
On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: >> Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. >> >> So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's >> parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. > > It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. > > If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. > > If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved geometry. > For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. > > Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then > nothing can be said about parallel lines. > > Sylvia. This was intended for the cranks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 15:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ivm2aoFrequU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #836045 |
On 18-Nov-21 1:05 pm, whodat wrote: > On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: >>> Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. >>> >>> So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's >>> parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. >> >> It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. >> >> If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. >> >> If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved >> geometry. For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. >> >> Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then >> nothing can be said about parallel lines. >> >> Sylvia. > > This was intended for the cranks. > Sorry. The typical crank ill assume that it's true, and then use that fact to prove that it's true. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 22:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Objective reality is unobtainable. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.17--10.40pm.Seattle.2021> |
| In reply to | #836059 |
Objective reality is unobtainable. You use "Euclid's parallel postulate" if/when it's _useful_. If you're Sentinelese, you kill anyone who mentions it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 05:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Objective reality is unobtainable. |
| Message-ID | <ivms1nF1l78U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #836081 |
On 11/18/2021 12:40 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > Objective reality is unobtainable. > > You use "Euclid's parallel postulate" if/when it's _useful_. > > If you're Sentinelese, you kill anyone who mentions it. Find an actual use for Euclid's parallel postulate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 19:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e9e008f4-450a-4c77-8231-47554ff748c8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #836042 |
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 5:37:15 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: > > Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. > > > > So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's > > parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. > It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. > > If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. > > If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved geometry. > For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. > > Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then > nothing can be said about parallel lines. > > Sylvia. Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 20:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2k0h6i-9pog.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836052 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 5:37:15 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: >> > Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. >> > >> > So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's >> > parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. >> It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. >> >> If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. >> >> If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved geometry. >> For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. >> >> Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then >> nothing can be said about parallel lines. >> >> Sylvia. > > Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, not even the references there, and in fact you deny they exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 20:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4affaf4a-73a7-446f-bc55-c49fcf09e616n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #836060 |
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: > > Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. > > How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, Yes! Thank you for this compliment. > not even the > references there, and in fact you deny they exist. The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. Believers ruin science. James McGinn / Genius
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 21:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <pr3h6i-bmqg.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836063 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: > >> > Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. >> >> How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, > > Yes! Thank you for this compliment. > >> not even the >> references there, and in fact you deny they exist. > > The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. Raving nonsense from a delusional fuck wit. So where is the data from your experiments that prove all of science is wrong and only you, one of the world's biggest losers, has discovered the "TRUTH"? > > Believers ruin science. > > James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 21:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <78dfb292-6ad0-499b-80c3-dc2de756e72bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #836065 |
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: > James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: > > > >> > Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. > >> > >> How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, > > > > Yes! Thank you for this compliment. > > > >> not even the > >> references there, and in fact you deny they exist. > > > > The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. > Raving nonsense from a delusional fuck wit. > > So where is the data from your experiments that prove all of science is > wrong and only you, one of the world's biggest losers, has discovered > the "TRUTH"? > > > > > Believers ruin science. > > > > James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit > > You have the mind of a child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 09:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ihfi6i-frnh.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836068 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:16:19 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >> > >> >> > Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. >> >> >> >> How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, >> > >> > Yes! Thank you for this compliment. >> > >> >> not even the >> >> references there, and in fact you deny they exist. >> > >> > The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. >> Raving nonsense from a delusional fuck wit. >> >> So where is the data from your experiments that prove all of science is >> wrong and only you, one of the world's biggest losers, has discovered >> the "TRUTH"? >> >> > >> > Believers ruin science. >> > >> > James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit >> > > You have the mind of a child. Yes, open to possiblities and full of wonder over the vastness of the universe. While you have the mind of a delusional, bat shit crazy, mental patient.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 08:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sn5pk9$esp$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #836065 |
On 11/17/2021 11:10 PM, Jim Pennino wrote: > James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >> >>>> Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. >>> >>> How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, >> >> Yes! Thank you for this compliment. >> >>> not even the >>> references there, and in fact you deny they exist. >> >> The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. > > Raving nonsense from a delusional fuck wit. > > So where is the data from your experiments that prove all of science is > wrong and only you, one of the world's biggest losers, has discovered > the "TRUTH"? > >> >> Believers ruin science. >> >> James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit >> James McGinn, Church Lady of Pretend Science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <qifi6i-frnh.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836088 |
Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 11/17/2021 11:10 PM, Jim Pennino wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:16:08 PM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >>> >>>>> Sylvia is just parroting back what anybody can find on wikipedia. >>>> >>>> How would you know what is on wikipedia, you don't use it, >>> >>> Yes! Thank you for this compliment. >>> >>>> not even the >>>> references there, and in fact you deny they exist. >>> >>> The biggest problem in science is the millions upon millions of believers who are only too happy to pretend to see evidence that fits what they have been told they should believe. This has resulted in much of science being not much different than a secular religion. Wikipedia and the internet in general feeds that monster. >> >> Raving nonsense from a delusional fuck wit. >> >> So where is the data from your experiments that prove all of science is >> wrong and only you, one of the world's biggest losers, has discovered >> the "TRUTH"? >> >>> >>> Believers ruin science. >>> >>> James McGinn / Delusional fuck wit >>> > > James McGinn, Church Lady of Pretend Science. Poster boy for increased spending on mental health services.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 22:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <ivm3j8FrmteU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #836042 |
On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18-Nov-21 11:59 am, whodat wrote: This is a "second thought" posting. Probably the best place to begin is with a recent conversation I had with a woman who coincidentally is a trained "life coach." And I do mean coincidentally because the reason for our conversation had nothing to do with her training. But the outcome did as I will show. In the course of this conversation, at a critical juncture she destroyed all her credibility by stating, "smart people say..." "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." <https://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/appeal_to_authority_examples/430/? When appeal to authority takes center stage, it is a variation on Godwin's law. The real conversation is over. >> Several posters in this newsgroup claim to be of genius caliber. >> >> So here's a challenge for them. Prove, or disprove, Euclid's >> parallel postulate, also known as his fifth postulate. > > It has been known for a long time that it cannot be proved or disproved. And here you are, Sylvia, with an appeal to an invisible authority. You've accepted what is "common wisdom" without really thinking the details through. Even worse, you say "it cannot be proved or disproved. Really? How would you go about proving *that*? You really cannot. Now I will appeal to a genuine authority, David Berlinski. I got the idea to mount the challenge from a book of his. Just because it has not been proved or disproved for three millennia doesn't mean that it cannot. The rewards for success will be great. The rewards for failure, well you've been wasting your time anyway. Honestly it isn't an appeal to an authority when the crux of the following discussion is "we really don't know..." Ignoring Banerjee for the moment, consider Einstein. What in particular allowed him to make his discoveries? What was there that kept others from making his discoveries earlier? Sure, sure, on the shoulders of giants and all that, but what made it all come together in 1905? It all could have been discovered hundreds of years earlier. Similarly with Euclid's parallel axiom, there is nothing actually holding us from discovering proof or disproof if we agree that elementary things aren't impossible. "It has been known..." Berlinski doesn't think so! And neither do I, but honestly I rely on the likes of Berlinski in formulating my opinion. I probably should not, but there it is, an acknowledged human failing. So please don't take any of this personally. I just think my experts are smarter than your experts. The balance of your posting has, IMO, merit independently of whether or not Euclid's parallel axiom can be proven or not. The challenge I issued remains standing. But I think that the cranks are a bunch of cowards who rather mouth off than produce anything of merit, or even attempt to. > If the axiom is asserted, then you have plane geometry. > > If its inverse is asserted, then you have some kind of curved geometry. > For example, it is clearly false in spherical geometry. > > Accordingly, if neither the axiom, nor is inverse, is asserted, then > nothing can be said about parallel lines. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-17 21:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <ed4e278e-0ad6-4c8d-8c2c-bd0f2de56a86n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #836061 |
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: > On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based > on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they > are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by > someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." Lotsa people know this. Extremely few actually apply it. You goons ain't got nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 09:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <olfi6i-frnh.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836066 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: >> On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based >> on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they >> are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by >> someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." > > Lotsa people know this. Extremely few actually apply it. > > You goons ain't got nothing!!! How about a list of 192 references that all show you are delusional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References footnote references: 102 Bibliography: 15 books and papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References footnote references: 25 Bibliography: 4 books and papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References references: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References references: 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References references: 17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References references: 11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 09:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <dd00696e-2813-4c74-b967-3bae96f5dbc0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #836104 |
On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: > James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: > >> On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >> "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based > >> on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they > >> are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by > >> someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." > > > > Lotsa people know this. Extremely few actually apply it. > > > > You goons ain't got nothing!!! > How about a list of 192 references that all show you are delusional: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References > > footnote references: 102 > Bibliography: 15 books and papers > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References > > footnote references: 25 > Bibliography: 4 books and papers > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References > > references: 12 > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References > > references: 6 > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References > > references: 17 > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References > > references: 11 You got nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 10:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <5gii6i-8oqh.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836110 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: >> >> On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> > >> >> "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based >> >> on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they >> >> are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by >> >> someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." >> > >> > Lotsa people know this. Extremely few actually apply it. >> > >> > You goons ain't got nothing!!! >> How about a list of 192 references that all show you are delusional: >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References >> >> footnote references: 102 >> Bibliography: 15 books and papers >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References >> >> footnote references: 25 >> Bibliography: 4 books and papers >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References >> >> references: 12 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References >> >> references: 6 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References >> >> references: 17 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References >> >> references: 11 > > You got nothing!!! Just a list of 192 books and papers all of which show you to be bat shit crazy and delusional. Here is is again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References footnote references: 102 Bibliography: 15 books and papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References footnote references: 25 Bibliography: 4 books and papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References references: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References references: 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References references: 17 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References references: 11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-11-18 10:32 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Not So Fast, Pilgrim (was Re: Since several claim to be so smart) |
| Message-ID | <orii6i-8oqh.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net> |
| In reply to | #836110 |
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-8, Jim Pennino wrote: >> James McGinn <jimmc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 8:37:01 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote: >> >> On 11/17/2021 7:37 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> > >> >> "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based >> >> on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they >> >> are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by >> >> someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject." >> > >> > Lotsa people know this. Extremely few actually apply it. >> > >> > You goons ain't got nothing!!! >> How about a list of 192 references that all show you are delusional: >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#References >> >> footnote references: 102 >> Bibliography: 15 books and papers >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)#References >> >> footnote references: 25 >> Bibliography: 4 books and papers >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#References >> >> references: 12 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#References >> >> references: 6 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_transition)#References >> >> references: 17 >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#References >> >> references: 11 > > You got nothing!!! You got delusions. Did you notice the list of 192 papers and books that contradict everything you have ever said?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web